Preamble

The House met at half-past
Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

F111K Aircraft

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what rôle is intended for the F111K aircraft that cannot equally well be fulfilled by the Phantom F4.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): The F111K is needed for high-level reconnaissance and for strike missions which require greater range /payload or greater all-weather capability than the Phantom F4 possesses.

Mr. Davidson: While thanking the Secretary of State for that answer, may I inquire why, as the intention was for the F111 to fill the gap up to the time the AFVG came into operation and as the projected range of the AFVG was not to be greater than that of the Phantom, this rôle could not be fulfilled by the Phantom and all the remaining V-bombers in view of our reduced commitments east of Suez?

Mr. Healey: I have explained that the Phantom cannot do the things that the F111 can do. In particular, it has no high-level reconnaissance capability whatever. The F111 was not only designed to fill in until the AFVG came in: it was to supplement the V-bombers until 1975 and the AFVG after that.

Persian Gulf (British Forces)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what strategic rôle is fulfilled by British forces stationed in the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Healey: British forces are contributing to the maintenance of stability and peaceful development in the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Davidson: What conceivable situation can the Secretary of State see in which British forces might intervene in Middle East affairs in view of our withdrawal from Aden, our reduced commitments in the area, and the outcome of the recent war between Israel and Egypt?

Mr. Healey: I am sure that the hon. Member must know that we have formal treaty obligations to certain States in the Persian Gulf, and we intend to carry them out so long as they exist.

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only consequence of the British rôle in this area is that we are the first to have our oil supplies cut off when trouble breaks out?

Mr. Healey: I am aware of no such thing.

Mr. Sandys: Since the Government have destroyed the whole of Britain's influence and prestige in the Arabian Peninsula, how much longer does the Secretary of State think we shall be able to stay in Bahrain?

Mr. Healey: I think that such a question, coming from a member of a Government which was responsible for the Suez attack in 1956 and a man who was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs responsible for launching the South Arabian situation on the course which it has followed, puts me under no obligation to accept the assumption or to answer it.

Mr. Whitaker: Have we learned the lesson, from the tragedy in Aden, that it is better to withdraw British troops from an indefensible position in support of an undemocratic Government before there is bloodshed?

Mr. Healey: I agree that if our position in the Gulf were indefensible, we should leave it; but that is not the case.

Mr. Sandys: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall raise this at the first possible opportunity.

Recruiting Expenditure

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence at what annual rate of expenditure recruiting is now running; how this compares with the annual rate of expenditure at the similar period last year; and to what extent he proposes to reduce current recruiting expenditure.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): The annual rate of expenditure is £10 million as compared with £9·8 million last year. The composition of the Armed Forces must be balanced, and future reductions do not affect the need for recruits now.

Mr. Allaun: But is that not a ridiculous waste of money? What is the sense in having lavish four-page advertisements in the weekend "glossies" when the Armed Forces are to be cut by 37,000 anyway?

Mr. Reynolds: The age structure of a place like, shall I say, this House, is not particularly important, but the age structure of an infantry battalion is important. We have to get young people in to make up for the older ones who go out.

Armed Forces (Young Recruits)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence why the statement, promised earlier this year, regarding young Servicemen who have been recruited at 15 years of age and who wish to change their minds, will not now be made.

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the report of the Latey Committee and the consequent study by his Department of the implications for long-service engagements by young persons, he will now make a statement on recruitment of teenagers and the position of existing servicemen who were engaged as minors.

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is now in a position to make a statement promised on 13th March last on the position of men who enlisted under the age of 18 years.

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now announce

the changes in Government policy regarding recruitment and discharge of young men in the Armed Forces.

Mr. Reynolds: The Report of the Committee on the Age of Majority raises complex questions for us. I shall make a statement as soon as I can, but it will not be easy to satisfy everyone.

Mr. Allaun: Is not this a breach of faith? Why should there be a need for still further examination of this inhumanity, particularly as the Forces are being reduced? The Minister has given three promises about this during the last eight months.

Mr. Reynolds: There is no breach o faith. We have to face the position of the school-leaving age going up in due course as announced, the Latey Report issued a few weeks ago, and the manning position of the Services, as well as the moral point with which my hon. Friend is concerned. I shall make a statement as soon as I possibly can.

Mr. Lubbock: Did not the Minister give an assurance to a deputation of hon. Members to him last May, which he subsequently repeated in a letter of 5th May, that within six weeks of the publication of the Latey Report he would announce the Government's conclusions on the question of the recruiting of young Servicemen? Why has the Minister broken his promise, and when can we expect the statement which he gave an undertaking to make to the House months ago?

Mr. Reynolds: The statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers was discussed when a deputation consisting of himself and a number of others came to see me. They pressed me to give an idea of when I hoped to be able to make the statement. I said that it would be a few weeks, or six or seven weeks, after the Latey Report. We were then thinking of the Report coming out in November, but in fact it came out in July. His Lordship worked faster than anyone expected at the time.

Mr. Hale: Surely a definite undertaking was given to the House during an Adjournment debate on 13th March? Since then there have been examples to which I have called the attention of the Ministry of Defence of exceptional lack of care for men who had enlisted and


had arranged and saved for their discharge.

Mr. Reynolds: I think that my hon. Friend is on a different point from the one affecting boy entrants, which is the matter I am looking into at the moment. I cannot accept that there are cases in which no care is taken in these matters. A great deal of care is taken with compassionate releases of one kind or another.

Miss Lestor: Will the Minister give some indication of the advice which we should give to many young Servicemen who have been in touch with us and whom we have advised we are waiting for his report? How do we tell them what their position is, particularly the number of cases in the hands of the National Council for Civil Liberties, which was part of the deputation to the Minister? We all understood that we would get a report from him within six weeks of the Latey Committee's Report coming out.

Mr. Reynolds: I think that my hon. Friend can get the reply from her question, namely, that we are waiting for the Report. I draw attention to the fact that in May of this year I said I would be pleased to receive representations and ideas from any hon. Member. I have not received any, but if anyone has any particular case or views on the matter I shall be only too pleased to receive them.

Guardsmen (Inquiry)

Sir Cyril Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on his recent inquiries into the corruption of young guardsmen by a well-to-do vice ring promoting homosexuality in the Household Cavalry and the Welsh Guards; and what action he is proposing to take.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 25th October.—[Vol. 751, c. 484.]

Sir C. Osborne: That reply said that the Department was investigating the matter. What I want to know is when will the report be ready, will it be published, and will the Minister confirm that there is truth behind these very serious allegations?

Mr. Boyden: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The reply I gave was that the inquiry was being conducted by the Metropolitan Police. It is not yet complete. The Army is assisting, and I should have thought that the House would consider this to be the right way to do it.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my hon. Friend expedite the inquiry, because many rumours are flying about which are not likely to encourage recruits to join the Services. I am serious about this. I cannot discount the rumours, or vouch for what is happening. The inquiry should be expedited.

Mr. Boyden: I agree with my right hon. Friend. That is what I will do. I am as worried as he is.

Military Medal (Gratuity)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many holders of the Military Medal in Scotland do not receive a gratuity; and what is their average age.

Mr. Boyden: No records are kept which would give this information.

Mr. Eadie: Would not my hon. Friend agree that we are discussing a diminishing number of people because of the age factor? Will he re-examine this matter and rectify what many people think is a gross injustice?

Mr. Boyden: The administrative cost would not justify the results that would follow, and there would still be considerable anomalies. If any hon. Member has details of cases of hardship I will gladly look at them to see whether there are Army charities or things of that sort which can assist.

Leslie Parkes

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when his report on the case of Leslie Parkes will be published.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his inquiries into the case of Mr. Leslie Parkes.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any further statement to make on the case of Leslie Parkes.

Mr. Healey: I have nothing to add to my statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 25th October.—[Vol. 751, c. 1731.]

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have the strong impression in this House that the military prosecution, which was based on very sound grounds, was suspended for political and publicity reasons? Will he take this opportunity of saying that the Army was in no way to blame, because considerable aspersions have been cast on the Army for the action it took?

Mr. Healey: I think that the hon. Gentleman cannot have consulted his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) who, speaking from the Front Bench, with all his authority as a spokesman on home affairs, and with his legal and military background, asked me to do precisely what I did. No aspersions have been cast on the Army, but there were a number of factors in the case which, as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone argued, made it desirable that if possible it should be dropped, and I took his advice.

Mr. Wall: Is it not the fact that in this case the charge was withdrawn before the summary of evidence was completed, and it was later found that the charge was fully justified? Does not this wholly vindicate the Army authorities, and prove the Minister's personal intervention, whatever his intentions at the time, to be both hasty and unjustified?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. That is not what right hon. and hon. Members from the Front Bench and back benches opposite said at the time. The situation sometimes arises in the civil courts when, for one reason or another, the Attorney-General decides that he should enter a nolle prosequi. Unfortunately such a proceeding is not available to the military authorities under military law. I believe that it should be, that in similar circumstances it is right that military proceedings should be brought to an end as they can be in the civil courts.
I recognise that some features of the way in which the proceedings were brought to an end were unsatisfactory, and I regret this, but I believe that more damage would have been done to the public interest and to the Army's interests
if the proceedings had been allowed to continue.

Mr. Bellenger: In the original statement my right hon. Friend said that the legal department of the War Office decided to take steps to rearrest Parkes, presumably on very substantial ground. Was any Minister consulted prior to this step being taken which would have avoided the necessity for quashing the proceedings on what my right hon. Friend termed public grounds?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. This was one of the minor errors of judgment to which I referred in my statement. My right hon. Friend will no doubt recall that when he was Secretary of State for War the right of military rearrest after the failure of civil proceedings was a matter of great controversy between his Department and another one. I think that it would have been better if, on this occasion, before this step was taken—there was no precedent for more than 20 years, and even the precedent was imperfect in many respects—there had been consultation at a higher level.

Sir J. Hobson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, before he procured the discontinuation of these military proceedings, he had had the advice of the Law Officers about whether it was proper to do so? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises that there is great anxiety that an executive Minister should stop the ordinary processes of a prosecution because he happens to be under political or Press pressure. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Attorney-General on showing the hollowness and absurdity of withdrawing a charge which was a good one?

Mr. Healey: I really think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with all his legal experience, should think twice about his second remark. He seemed to be suggesting that in the proceedings which he took for perjury the Attorney-General was pursuing the Army's case against Parkes as a deserter. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not suggesting that that is the case. If he were, it would be most improper.

Mr. G. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that his reply concerning the


Army's part in this is totally unsatisfactory, because it is now evident that, whatever the local police may have done, the Army was in no way to blame for what happened? As the Army cannot speak for itself in this House, will he make this clear?

Mr. Healey: I hope that nobody is trying to put me into the position of criticising the Army as a whole. I believe that some errors of judgment were made in this case, and this is why I thought it right that it should be brought to an end and Parkes released. The errors to which I have referred are the long delay between his arrest and re-arrest, the circumstances of the arrest itself, the circumstances in which Parkes was held in detention, which may be held, and were held, by many hon. Members to have prejudiced the later trial, but, above all, the propriety of using Section 74 to re-arrest a man and take military proceedings when a civil court had found that there was no case that he was subject to military law. I am trying to ensure that this type of case can never arise again. I think that the House as a whole strongly approved the statement I made a fortnight ago that in fact it should not in future be the practice to use Section 74 in cases where the magistrates have found that there was no case to be heard under Sections 186 and 187.

Mr. G. Campbell: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question at the earliest opportunity.

Vietnam

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy personnel have been directly involved in the Vietnam war.

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of Her Majesty's forces have been engaged in Service duties on land in Vietnam, in the air over Vietnam or in coastal waters around Vietnam, in the last two years; what were their duties; to what units of Her Majesty's forces they were attached, or to which foreign or Commonwealth forces they were attached, or seconded.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what British service personnel have been attached to United States or Allied forces in South Vietnam.

Mr. Healey: There are seven attachés and assistant defence attachés on the staff of Her Majesty's Ambassador in Saigon, together with a supporting staff of 10 other ranks.
Visits to South Vietnam by Service officers to gain information have numbered 19, involving 42 officers in all, in the last two years.
On three occasions a Beverley aircraft has been detached from Singapore to Saigon to help with the distribution of relief and welfare supplies provided by various charitable organisations. The total number of Service personnel concerned has been 56.
Occasionally, shorter-range R.A.F. aircraft stage through Saigon en route from Singapore to Hong Kong, there being no suitable alternative. In this connection, there is an R.A.F. movement control officer at Saigon airport.
Since 1965 some 30 British Service personnel who have been on loan or exchange with Australian or New Zealand forces have been to South Vietnam for short visits mainly in ships. The arrangements under which they are exchanged or loaned preclude involvement in active military operations and the Service men in question have not been so involved. However, extensive inquiries have brought to light that one Royal Naval officer, who retired from the Service in January this year, took part for a few days, while previously on a loan posting to the Royal Australian Navy, in bottom searches of merchant ships in Vietnam waters.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is strong feeling in this country that British Armed Forces should not be used in any way in the Vietnam fighting? Is my right hon. Friend saying that, apart from this one exception, the Evening Standard story was untrue? Can he make a definite statement about the Evening Standard article?

Mr. Healey: Yes. The Evening Standard article was completely untrue. It said that personnel of Royal Navy


Combined Operations had been conducting secret military operations in Vietnam during the last 12 months. As I have made clear, this was totally untrue.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in view of the concern on these benches that our forces should never be engaged in any capacity whatever in that war, we are grateful to him for his careful inquiries?

Mr. Healey: indicated assent.

Mr. Goodhart: I agree that British combat forces should not be directly engaged in the Vietnam conflict, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider sending a British military medical team to serve with the Australian contingent in Vietnam, to help, our Commonwealth casualties and also civilian casualties?

Mr. Healey: Given our responsibilities as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, I think it would be wrong for British forces to be involved in any way in military operations in Vietnam. I regret that I must decline the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Grimond: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clearing up this matter, but will he make it clear that not only are British personnel not used in any secret investigations in Vietnamese waters but are not used for any purpose in clearing underwater obstructions or wrecks round Vietnamese ports?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. I can give that assurance.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that the military lessons of the Vietnam war are available to Her Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Healey: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to Questions by the hon. Members for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) on 31st May, 1967.—[Vol. 747, c. 65–6 and 71.]

Mr. Blaker: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that much less can be learnt by defence attachés, especially at embassies, than by observers stationed for substantial periods with the competent forces? Have we now or have we had such observers?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. We have no such observers because the last Govern-

ment, in July, 1964, decided that it would not be wise to allow British officers and men to serve as observers with fighting forces in Vietnam. That was a wise decision, and the present Government intend to stand by it.

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that reference is constantly being made to things said in this House during the last Session?

Mr. Speaker: I shall be dealing with that point of order at 3.30 p.m.

Strategic Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence under what conditions Great Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent will be used independently outside its international rôle.

Mr. Healey: As I told the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on 1st March, the Government cannot conceive of any situation in which we would need to exercise the right to the independent use of our strategic nuclear weapons.—[Vol. 742, c. 484–5.]

Mr. Marten: Can the Government nevertheless confirm that it is our policy to use our strategic nuclear deterrent independently if our supreme national interest is at stake? Secondly, if that should be so, does that include Polaris and the exercise of our nuclear capabilities in N.A.T.O., S.E.A.T.O. and CENTO?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Member has asked a hypothetical question about a hypothesis which Her Majesty's Government cannot entertain.

Mr. Blaker: But surely the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that the terms on which the British nuclear deterrent is committed to N.A.T.O. reserve to the Government the right to use that deterrent independently in certain circumstances.

Mr. Healey: As I have made clear, I cannot conceive of circumstances in which we would need to exercise that right.

Republic of South Africa (Supply of Arms)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total value of arms sales to the Republic of South Africa in the last 12 months.

The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. Roy Mason): As the Prime Minister reminded the hon. Member on 28th July, 1966, it is a long-standing and necessary convention that details of arms sales to individual countries are not disclosed.—[Vol. 732, c. 1890.]

Mr. Marten: Can the Minister say whether the South Africans have requested certain British military equipment and, if so, whether the Government are now considering that request?

Mr. Mason: I cannot reveal what requests are made by individual Governments to us for arms sales. All I can say is that the embargo that was placed on arms to South Africa still stands.

Mr. Faulds: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that there is no substance in reports that the Government are considering lifting their embargo and supplying certain types of military equipment to South Africa?

Mr. Mason: This question is bound to come up time and time again. We are always pressed to comment on the question whether we are considering our policy afresh. I reiterate that at this moment we stand by the United Nations Resolution of 18th June, 1964, which banned all arms to South Africa.

Aden (Withdrawal of British Forces)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the arrangements for withdrawal of British troops from Aden.

Mr. Healey: As the House knows, our forces in Aden will be withdrawn by the end of November. Aircraft of Air Support Command, augmented in the initial stages by civil aircraft, will make the main lift of personnel and a Royal Naval task force off Aden will cover the withdrawal.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Before our withdrawal is it intended to pass further areas of Aden over to the Federal Army? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer an important question, namely, whether there is any information as to who is at present controlling the Federal Army?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. The latest information is that the Federal Army is fully under the control of the officers

appointed to command it. On the first question, the withdrawal will be phased and, as it proceeds, certain areas will be handed over to the Federal Army. The House will recognise that I cannot be expected to give details of the phasing of the withdrawal plan.

Mr. Lubbock: Leaving aside the political implications of withdrawal at a time when anarchy appears to prevail in the Federation, can the right hon. Gentleman say what difference the advancement of the date of our withdrawal would make to the cost of air transport, stated to be £140 million in last year's Defence Estimates?

Mr. Healey: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Will the Minister give advice to the civilians in the Aden area as to what action they should take when our troops are withdrawn?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. I would like to explain the situation in relation to this very important problem. At the moment there are about 500 British and friendly nationals in Aden, 200 of whom will be leaving before the last troops leave. That will leave about 300. We have contingency plans at any moment before independence to withdraw the remaining British civilians if they wish to be withdrawn. After independence, if some or all the remaining British civilians wish to leave we would seek a safe conduct from the authorities, but we shall have a very powerful Navy task force for a short time in local waters, and if it is necessary to use the task force—which will include a commando carrier—we shall do so.

Aircraft Carriers

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the failure to develop surface-to-surface weapons for the Royal Navy, he will reconsider the case for the replacement of exsting aircraft carriers by small modern carriers.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in the light of the sinking of the Israeli destroyer "Eilat" by Komar missiles, he will review Her Majesty's Government's policy not to replace aircraft carriers due to become obsolescent in the early 1970's.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further consideration he has given to the replacement of existing aircraft carriers by small modern carriers.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will reconsider the provision of small modern carriers, in view of the threat from surface-to-surface missiles and the lack of alternative defensive measures.

Mr. Healey: The answer to all four Questions is, none, and, no, Sir.

Mr. Wall: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, although the helicopter has an important rôle to play in submarine warfare, anti-surface ship helicopters are vulnerable to fighter aircraft and missiles? Will he therefore look again at the whole case for cheaper and less sophisticated aircraft carriers?

Mr. Healey: I have had a careful look, as the hon. Gentleman will no doubt recognise, in recent months, but nothing which has recently happened has caused me to change my view that the best type of defence for ships at sea in the period after our own aircraft carriers phase out will be a combination of naval vessels, helicopter-borne missiles, perhaps surface-to-surface missiles and land-based strike aircraft. I am confirmed in this view by the fact that I have seen reports that the Soviet Navy is producing helicopter carriers and a substantial amphibious force but seems to have no current intention of providing a strike aircraft carrier to protect them.

Mr. Cronin: While there may be serious economic objections to the provision of even small modern aircraft carriers, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, to the maximum extent, all surface ships will be provided with helicopters equipped with air-to-ship missiles?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir, this is a most important element in our policy, because, even if we had an aircraft carrier force of three, as the previous Government intended, we could not hope to have more than one on station in extra-European waters at a time, and the capacity of that one carrier to protect the whole fleet would obviously be very limited. By giving each substantial ship its own heli-

copter or its own surface-to-air missile, we are substantially increasing the defensive capability of the fleet at sea.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, before quoting the Russian Navy, that it has developed a very effective surface-to-surface capability and that this is perhaps why they do not need aircraft carriers or the very versatile manned aircraft, and that it would not be comparable to quote the fact that we do not need a surface-to-surface capability or aircraft? We have not developed, as a conscious act of policy, a surface-to-surface missile.

Mr. Healey: With respect, the hon. Gentleman, with all his previous Ministerial knowledge, will recognise that one does not protect the fleet at sea with a 20-mile surface-to-surface missile. That is not the function of the Komar missile or the Komar patrol boats.

Mr. Mayhew: What trials have been made of the helicopter using the AS.12? Was it not strange to decide to phase out the carriers before making sure whether this alternative protection of our vessels worked?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir, I do not think so, as I explained to my hon. Friend at the time in another capacity. The importance of taking a decision on the carriers—a decision which had been dodged by the previous Government for about 15 years—was that by taking it in 1966, we gave ourselves time to meet the requirement by the time that the carriers phased out.

Unidentified Flying Object (North Devon)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which an unidentified flying object has been seen in the Okehampton area of Devon; and what are his plans to deal with a recurrence of this flying object;
(2) whether the flying object in the Okehampton area of Devon, which has been described as a star-shaped cross larger than a conventional aircraft, is a British aircraft or an unidentified flying object.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): We received a number of reports of objects seen in the sky over North Devon in October. After investigation, some proved to be aircraft and some were lights. Of the lights, the majority were the planet Venus; but the source of a few lights has not been positively identified. I can say, however, that none of these unidentified lights was an alien object.
There are standing instructions for R.A.F. stations to report unusual objects seen in the sky, and standing arrangements for investigating these reports and similar reports from other sources. I do not consider additional action necessary.

Mr. Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this matter is not only of considerable interest to the South-West, particularly the Okehampton area, but also of some concern? How does this statement square with the statements of two police officers and of engineers at Hessary Tor that low-flying objects were moving for over an hour in the area?

Mr. Rees: In answer to a Question yesterday and another today, I have published details of all the investigations which have been made over recent years, and none of these would give any reason to believe that there are unidentified objects in the sense which has been implied. Further, we have complete radar coverage to a very great height over all these islands and have access to that over Europe, and none of this leads us to believe in any sense that this is anything else than something which we know nothing about.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Can my hon. Friend assure us that he has received scientific advice?

Mr. Rees: I can give that assurance. This is not just an air defence matter. We have access to scientists of high repute—they have been consulted on all these matters—and also to psychologists.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: The hon. Gentleman said that we have complete radar coverage. In these circumstances, can he explain how a letter was sent by his Department when a report was

sent about one of these objects to the effect that it "might or might not" have been an aircraft but his Department was unable to say?

Mr. Rees: The problem is that, if one is notified of this right away, it is possible to give a more definitive reply, but when one gets a letter weeks later asking what it might have been on such and such an occasion, it is difficult to be definitive on it. But nothing leads us to believe that this is men from Mars or anything of that kind.

Mr. Shinwell: Would it not be desirable for the Government to encourage this idea that there are unidentified flying objects and that there is a danger of invasion from another planet? Would this not create the necessary diversion so that people in this country, and the electors in particular, would not worry about their economic problems?

Mr. Rees: Judging from the public's response to some newspaper reports, I can only hope that they will take my right hon. Friend's remark seriously.

Royal Navy (Surface-to-Surface Capability)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further plans he will make to equip surface vessels of the Royal Navy with ship-to-ship missiles; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to speed up the provision of surface-to-surface guided missiles for British warships.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy with regard to the provision of ship-to-ship missiles.

Mr. Mason: As I explained to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 25th October, the Royal Navy's surface-to-surface capability in the 1970s will be based on helicopter-launched guided missiles which will be provided in every ship from frigate upwards. We are introducing the AS.12 air-to-surface missile next year, and before the aircraft carriers phase out this will have been replaced by an even more effective helicopter-launched missile. These weapons will be


fully effective against lightly defended surface targets such as the missile-firing patrol boats which sank the "Eilat"; by using helicopters to deliver them, we can both outrange the enemy missiles and achieve a flexibility of operation which would be impossible with a ship-launched system.—[Vol. 751, c. 1729–31.]

Mr. Hamling: Would my hon. Friend not agree that helicopters are very vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire? Are there no other weapons systems which he could devise?

Mr. Mason: But this will give us the flexibility and the cost-effectiveness which we require, and the "eyes" which the Navy wants, and we shall be able to operate far more effectively than with the ship-to-ship capability well beyond the horizon with helicopter-borne missiles.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Did not the decision to phase out aircraft carriers make the case very much stronger for these missiles? Is it not highly questionable whether the helicopter will do the job properly?

Mr. Mason: I would remind the House that I said last week that Seaslug Mk.II has a secondary capability of ship-to-ship and that Sea Dart, which is now coming into production, is primarily a ship-to-air missile, but also has a secondary ship-to-ship capability.

Mr. Cronin: To allay public anxiety partly over this matter, will my hon. Friend confirm that there are also effective electronic counter-measures for ship-to-ship missiles?

Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir, and I know that my hon. Friend is fully conversant with them.

Mr. Hogg: Can the hon. Gentleman give the present operability of helicopters at night or in a thick mist?

Mr. Mason: Not without a good deal of lecturing to the House, Sir.

Polaris Submarines

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the third and fourth Polaris submarines are due to be commissioned.

Mr. Mason: The third Polaris submarine, H.M.S. "Repulse", is due to be commissioned in the autumn of 1968; the fourth submarine, H.M.S. "Revenge", is due to follow six months later.

Mr. Campbell: For how long is this independent deterrent to be retained? In particular, are the Government planning to develop a more modern warhead for the missiles to prolong the life of the Polaris system?

Mr. Mason: The deployment and development of hardened or Poseidon warheads for carriers and submarines is an entirely different question from that on the Order Paper, which concerns commissioning.

Mr. Hale: In view of the Prime Minister's clear undertaking on this question, may we be assured that all these had, at the time of the 1964 election, reached a stage at which it was impossible to stop their progress or cancel their production because they could not be adapted for any other purposes?

Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. The House should also be aware—especially my hon. Friend—that, when a Government embark on building a very complex and expensive weapons system like this, lead items are ordered in many cases two years before the keel of the vessel is laid.

Mr. James Davidson: I should like to ask the Minister what estimate has been made of the running expenses of the Polaris submarines when they are commissioned.

Mr. Mason: I could not give that information without notice, but I shall be pleased to write to the hon. Member about it.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend ensure that when either of these is launched there is no mud about, because the last one was a very undignified spectacle?

Mr. Mason: As far as I can help it, yes, Sir.

Departmental Organisation

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further changes he is instituting in the organisation of his Department.

Mr. Healey: I keep the organisation of the Ministry of Defence, which continues to evolve, under regular review. When I decide that any further major changes are needed, I shall, of course, inform the House.

Mr. Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these rumours have a very unsettling effect and result in a loss of confidence in the Service? If he intends to make any changes, will he announce them as soon as possible?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he has the support of many hon. Members in the excellent work which his Ministry is doing to push forward the Polaris submarine programme and in the work being done on improved warheads?

Mr. Healey: I accept that compliment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must arise out of the initial Question.

Malaysia and Singapore

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the defence authorities of Malaysia and of Singapore following the British White Paper of July,1967.

Mr. Healey: There has been the normal continuing exchange of views on matters of common interest.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: In view of the uncertainty which the recent Parliamentary delegation found on this subject, both in Kuala Lumpur and in Singapore, on the British military rôle, will the right hon. Gentleman say categorically what steps he is taking to make quite clear to the people out there what can be done to honour the obligations of the British in the Anglo-Malaysian defence agreement?

Mr. Healey: My impression is that there is no uncertainty whatever about the military side of our policy. I talked to the Prime Minister of Singapore only the other day about it and about the Malaysia position. There is great concern in both countries about the economic consequences of the rundown, and we are in the closest touch with them

on that. As soon as we are in a position to make a further announcement, we shall do so.

Mr. Tapsell: Have the Government learned the bitter lesson of Aden? Will they reconsider the wisdom of announcing distant dates for British withdrawal in totally unpredictable circumstances?

Mr. Healey: I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read the recent pamphlet by the Conservative Central Office recording the conclusions of Lord Selkirk and other leading experts on the area. He will see that the objective set by those Conservative experts was the same as our own, but they left great uncertainty about the way and time in which they would carry it out. If hon. Members opposite are worried about uncertainty, they should applaud us for introducing some firm elements into the problem.

Aldabra Atoll

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he will announce a decision on the base or staging post at Aldabra Atoll in the Indian Ocean;
(2) what plans he has for the protection of the staging post at Aldabra Atoll in the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Healey: No decision has yet been taken on the possibility of building an airfield in the British Indian Ocean territory. I will make an announcement, one way or the other, as soon as possible. I am not prepared to deal on a hypothetical basis with the question of the protection of such an airfield.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there a current cost estimate?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the Minister aware that it is rather more than two years since he announced this as being a basic part of his defence philosophy, in the White Paper of 1965? That is rather a long time, and he has not yet produced any plans to bring into being what he suggested was essential in order to make use of the F111.

Mr. Healey: I am afraid that it was such a long time ago that the hon. Member has completely forgotten the terms in


which reference was made to this matter. It was not regarded as a basic part but as a possible element of flexibility.

Beira (Naval Patrol)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the efficiency of the naval blockade as part of Her Majesty's Government's policy of sanctions against the illegal Smith regime in Rhodesia.

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to withdraw the naval patrol from the Beira area.

Mr. Healey: The naval patrol off Beira has been wholly effective in that it has cut off the most direct means of oil supply to Rhodesia. Its success is amply demonstrated by the enforced closure of the refinery at Umtali. The additional expense of importing refined products over great distances is constituting a significant drain on Rhodesia's resources of foreign exchange. The patrol will be needed as long as the Security Council Resolution of 9th April, 1966, under which it was instituted, remains in force. On the costs of the patrol, including the R.A.F. detachment, I refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on Wednesday, 25th October.

Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the policy of sanctions is little more than an expensive gesture, unless there are adequate means of complete enforcement? When shall we extend the blockade to ports not yet covered?

Mr. Healey: That is not a question for me. My hon. Friend knows that it raises a very large number of very difficult economic and political questions.

Mr. Goodhew: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a complete charade, since oil is gushing into Rhodesia through other ports, as is known to the right hon. Gentleman and his Government? Is he completely unaware that this patrol ties down and commits more than one-third of our total frigate and destroyer force east of Suez? Is not this a thoroughly irresponsible and unnecessary burden on the Royal Navy at

a time when it is so overstretched in that area?

Mr. Healey: I do not believe that the officers and men of the Royal Navy concerned regard this as a charade, and I do not think they will take very kindly to the hon. Member's reference to it as such. I can only tell him again, in case he did not listen to my Answer, that by blockading Beira we have forced the Umtali refinery to close down and imposed a major burden in foreign exchange on the illegal regime in Rhodesia.

Mr. Bellenger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the so-called efficiency of the British Navy outside Beira is by no means absolute in relation to sanctions against Mr. Smith's Government? Has he observed that not only in the public Press but in the House, in a film, it is alleged that there is still considerable connivance by British-owned companies in trying to breach the blockade?

Mr. Healey: That is quite another matter. The purpose of the naval blockade, as defined by the United Nations resolution, was to stop crude oil arriving at Beira, and in that it has been 100 per cent effective.

Sir Knox Cunningham: How many of Her Majesty's ships have been employed in this blockade and how many are employed in that capacity at present?

Mr. Healey: A patrol of two frigates has been employed continuously since the blockade began.

Rhodesia

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether Great Britain is still committed to, and whether forces are still available for, military intervention in Rhodesia following a breakdown of law and order in that territory.

Mr. Healey: The position has not changed since my reply to the hon. Member's Question last April.

Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that, with the steady erosion of law and order as we understand them in Britain, that situation is rapidly coming about? At what point would he be prepared to intervene?

Mr. Healey: I do not believe that that point has come about, and I am afraid that I cannot speculate on hypothetical contingencies.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Do the British Government hold themselves responsible for the integrity of Rhodesia against aggression or subversion from outside?.

Hon. Members: South Africa.

Mr. Healey: I do not know precisely to which matter the hon. Member is referring. If he will tell me I will try to reply.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that there have been incursions across the Rhodesian frontier. Is not the House responsible for Rhodesia, according to the Government? I therefore ask, does the Secretary of State hear any responsibility for the defence of Rhodesia?

Mr. Healey: I have no responsibility for the incursions which have taken place, according to reports, in both directions, from North and South, but the hon. Member knows that protests have been made to certain Governments.

Mr. Whitaker: What further action will be taken about the invasion of British soil from South Africa? Can my right hon. Friend recollect any previous invasion of British territory when the benches opposite did not loudly demand that a gunboat should be sent?

Mr. Healey: I am not sure whether that is the purport of the question by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what appraisals have been made in the last six months of the feasibility of the use of force against the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia; and what conclusions have been reached.

Mr. Healey: I have nothing to add to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12th November, 1965.—[Vol. 720, c. 538.]

Dr. Kerr: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that I have asked about feasibility studies in the last six months, during which the situation has changed? I want to know whether my right hon. Friend is asking us to accept,

in a changing situation in relation to Rhodesia, that his Ministry has not made up-to-date feasibility studies.

Mr. Healey: I have often told the House that it is not the practice and never has been to discuss contingency plans in the House in detail. Nothing in the situation has required the Government to change the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the date I mentioned, when he said:
I think the whole House will feel that we should not consider sending what would be a major military invasion for the purpose of imposing a constitutional solution on Rhodesia."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 538.]

Contingency Planning

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent his present contingency plans are based on the criterion that a Soviet attack in Europe is unlikely in present circumstances.

Mr. Healey: It is of the nature of contingency planning that it should cover the unlikely as well as the more likely situation.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that no plans are being considered in his Ministry for further drastic reductions in the forces in addition to those already announced?

Mr. Healey: I can tell the House that my Ministry, like many others in Whitehall, is deeply concerned that we shall solve the problem of the foreign exchange costs of the British forces in Germany. With the hon. and gallant Gentleman's long Service background, he will know that it is not the custom for Ministers of whatever party in this House to speculate on planning.

F111 Aircraft (Offset Agreement)

Mr. Bishop: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress to date with F111 offset purchases, with particular reference to Elliott's order for head-up display equipment.

Mr. John Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of the contract awarded to Messrs. Elliott


Automation for head-up display equipment for United States Navy aircraft; and whether this will count against the F111 offset purchases agreement.

Mr. Woof: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the major orders that have been obtained by British industry under the F111 offset-agreement; and how many British firms have so far tendered for orders.

Mr. Bagier: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made with the F111 offset purchasing arrangements agreed with the United States Government.

Mr. Boston: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the defence contracts that have been obtained from the United States of America.

Mr. Mason: I am pleased to tell the House that proposals made by Messrs. Elliott Automation Limited for the supply of head-up display equipment for the United States A7 aircraft have been accepted. This should mean sales worth about $40 million. We have now received other orders from the United States Department for Defense, and from U.S. defence contractors, worth nearly $138 million. The main items are Spey engine components worth $82 million; three salvage tugs and two survey ships worth $40 million; aircraft equipment worth $6 million; machine tools worth $3 million; and general stores such as fence posts and pipes worth $4 million. The balance is made up of miscellaneous items of naval and army equipment worth $3 million. These orders have been won by 28 different firms.

Mr. Bishop: While appreciating my hon. Friend's reply and the effect of the offset agreement upon our industry, may I ask whether he is satisfied that his Ministry and others are doing all they can to enable our firms to compete in United States markets?

Mr. Mason: The offset arrangement is giving British firms ample opportunity and they are responding very well. It has given them a chance to sell equipment of advanced technological design to the Americans. The Elliott equipment is a typical example.

Mr. Ellis: Considerable doubt has been cast on the value of the offset agreement. Can my hon. Friend state whether the securing of this order was helped by the agreement?

Mr. Mason: Undoubtedly so. British industry already is taking a great interest. Indeed, 400 firms have shown an interest in the arrangement.

Mr. Bagier: In view of the obvious effect on our shipbuilding industry, what has happened to the bid which it was hoped to make for minesweepers for the United States Navy?

Mr. Mason: As I have said, we are already building five other ships for the American Navy. After the slight "hiccup" our shipyards have been invited to bid for nine minesweepers.

Mr. Boston: How many British firms altogether have tendered for these and further orders?

Mr. Mason: Altogether 400 British firms have shown interest, but I cannot give the specific number of firms which have already tendered.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The items the hon. Gentleman listed in his first reply had already been announced in one way or another. Is it not the case that the head-up display was accepted entirely on its merits and not because of the agreement?

Mr. Mason: This is not true. The lower tariffs introduced in order to help British firms sell defence equipment to the United States have helped considerably.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave an untruthful answer to the House to my Written Question No. 30 last Friday concerning the total outstanding value of dollar debts contracted for aircraft in America by the present Government?

Mr. Mason: I do not know the Question or the Answer and so I cannot comment.

Anglo-French Aircraft Projects

Mr Bishop: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with regard to the proposed Anglo-French helicopter deal.

Mr. Murray: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the Anglo-French helicopter deal.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether progress has been maintained on other Anglo-French collaborative projects since the cancellation of the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft.

Mr. Healey: The Anglo-French Martel, Jaguar and Helicopter programmes are going well. Development of both Martel and Jaguar is well advanced and preparations are in hand for the start of production. At a meeting of Ministers in Paris last month agreement was reached to start joint production on the tactical SA330 helicopter and to embark on the full development of the light SA340 and utility WG13. A Rolls-Royce Bristol Siddeley engine was adopted for the WG13.

Mr. Bishop: Is not my right hon. Friend a little concerned about future prospects of collaboration with the French in view of their attitude to the A.F.V.G. and towards our application to join the E.E.C.?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. My impression is that where there is a clear common interest to be achieved which is accepted in principle in advance, it is possible to work out agreements in detail and stick to them. There is a clear common interest between Britain and France that these programmes should succeed.

Mr. Murray: Will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that the programme will not become predominantly French as against Anglo-French?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. We have taken care, particularly in the case of the helicopter, to balance out the work of design and production between the two countries.

Naval Construction

Mr. Small: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of naval construction placed in the three years previous to 1964; and what is the comparable figure to date.

Mr. Mason: For the period 1961–63, £158·7 million. For the period 1965–67,

£254·2 million. These figures represent the total cost of new construction, including weapon equipment and so on, which are given in the annual Estimates.

Mr. Small: What proportion of this order have the Scottish shipyards received?

Mr. Mason: Naval construction this year in Scottish shipyards is 24 per cent.

Mr. McMaster: What attention is given by the Government, in placing orders, to whether shipyards winning them satisfy the Geddes Committee's requirements?

Mr. Mason: At present, I give shipyards their orders according to how competitive they are, with date of delivery taken into consideration as well.

Sir F. Bennett: What proportion of the latter figure in the hon. Gentleman's main Answer had any relevance to the Polaris submarines?

Mr. Mason: I cannot answer that without notice.

Micro-Biological Research Establishment

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish annually the results of microbiological research at Porton which have no direct military applicability.

Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir, our policy is to publish as much of these research results as we can. Last year, for example, 40 papers were published by the staff of the Micro-Biological Research Establishment, and members of the staff give lectures and attend national and international symposia. An annual report, in the form of abstracts of all original work published, is issued to about 300 libraries at universities, research institutions and industrial organisations and copies are available on request. From 1st December, 1967, all suitable unclassified departmental reports will be released to the National Lending Library for Science and Technology.

Dr. Kerr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he note that some of us have a deeply-rooted suspicion of this extrusion from a nightmarish science fiction situation and would be grateful if he could indicate the balance


of benefit we derive from the peaceful uses of this research?

Mr. Mason: On the military side, we deal only with counter-measures in defence, but a lot of the work carried out is helping many of the medical research centres. There is a considerable civil fall-out.

R.A.F. Station, Thorney Island

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to release the Royal Air Force aerodrome at Thorney Island for use as a civilian aerodrome within the next two years.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: None, Sir.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if he is contemplating at any time re-locating Transport Command from Thorney Island, the use of the aerodrome for civil purposes would be widely welcomed?

Mr. Rees: The intention is that we shall use Thorney Island during the 1970s, probably well into the decade. I remind the hon. Gentleman that civil use is allowed there now. If there is any thought of using it on a regular basis, perhaps we can discuss it with the Board of Trade and the local authorities.

Discharge by Purchase (Personal Case)

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for Defence why the hon. Member for Oldham, West was told that the sum of £150 deposited with his commanding officer by a soldier whose name has been given to him could not have been paid in respect of his purchased discharge as the correct figure was £200 and was later told the correct figure was £150 but the discharge had been deferred for other reasons.

Mr. Boyden: When the soldier first applied to purchase his discharge, the amount required was £200. He deposited £150 with his unit solely to ensure its safe custody. The unit did not accept the money as part of the purchase price. Later, when the soldier reached the age of 21, the purchase price was reduced to £150. But by then he was debarred from purchasing his discharge because he was serving overseas.

Mr. Hale: Is not my hon. Friend aware that this lad was quite aware of his

age and that he was going to be 21 when he saved up his money and deposited it? Is there any other case of a lad handing £150 to his colonel in that regiment? How has the money been invested and at what interest? What was it paid for but to secure his discharge, which has been held up for three years? He has been sent abroad and told that he must pay his fare back after becoming 21 and wait a further 12 months. Is this not a gross and wicked breach of undertakings given?

Mr. Boyden: There was no question of compassionate circumstances in this case which could justify this man's release. If the hon. Member has now found some compassionate circumstances I will be very glad to look at them, but according to the rules the soldier was ineligible for discharge.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: I wish to clarify a clumsy comment I made yesterday during Question Time in answer to a point of order raised by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey). I was asked whether Ministers, in their Answers to Questions, could refer back to Answers given during the previous Session. I observed that while such references were not out of order, the practice, if extended, could be embarrassing to hon. Members who put Questions. Hon. Members will find this observation in col. 833 of yester-day's HANSARD.
I owe it to the House—and, indeed, to the Prime Minister, about one of whose Answers the matter arose—to make it clear that it is not out of order that references to answers given in a previous Session should from time to time be made. In the case to which my attention was drawn, the previous Answer referred to was given five months ago, before the Summer Recess.
While, therefore, I remain of the opinion that references to Answers made long ago may be unhelpful to hon. Members, the practice of referring to Answers given in the previous Session is not, as such, out of order. Indeed, if the Answers have been recently given, this will doubtless be in the mind of the hon. Member


who has asked the Question, and the time of the House can be saved thereby.
I hope that this makes the matter clear beyond peradventure.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dalyell. On a point of order.

Mr. Dalyell: I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to raise on a point of order a matter of principle which is of some concern to the rights of all hon. Members.
Yesterday afternoon I handed in to the Table Office two Oral Questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, two Written Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence, and an Oral Question and five Written Questions to the Minister of Public Building and Works on the matter of the proposed staging post on Aldabra Atoll in the Indian Ocean.
These Questions were found all to be in order, and with characteristic courtesy and good humour the Clerk at the Table Office on duty said, "You are nearing the campaign limit", or words to that effect.
To my surprise this morning, none of these Questions appeared on the Order Paper for future answer. On inquiry, I found that the Principal Clerk of the Table Office, for what was said to be "for my own good", had withheld these Questions from the printer. Consequent on my inquiry this morning, I received the following letter at two o'clock from the Principal Clerk of the Table Office:
You will recall that when you recently visited the Table Office one of my colleagues mentioned that the number of questions which you had down on Aldabra was nearing the point at which there was a possible danger of disallowance of further questions on the grounds that they were 'multiplied with slight variations on the same point'. (May, p. 355.)
By yesterday you had 39 such questions down; and in view of the fact that Speakers have occasionally in the past intervened at this stage or earlier, I felt it my duty to withhold from the paper the 10 further questions which you had brought in last night, until I had had the opportunity of discussing the matter with Mr. Speaker.
This I have done, and he has asked me to let you know that in his opinion 50 questions in total is the absolute maximum which he is willing to permit in this case. I have accordingly sent your 10 questions to the printer, in

the form agreed between yourself and the Table Office.
I put it to the House that two questions arise. First: should questions from an hon. Member be withheld without his knowledge which are acknowledged to be in order and accepted by the Table Office? Secondly, while I freely confess to conducting a so-called "campaign"—I myself prefer to call it a systematic inquiry to establish facts about the military, financial and scientific consequences of a potential British staging post in Aldabra before the Government's decision is taken—is there anything wrong in a Member of Parliament putting so many Questions to 11 different Ministers?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, would you care to comment on the doctrine that a Member of Parliament who sets himself up as an inquisitor of an aspect of future executive policy should be ruled out of order?

Mr. Speaker: I might, first, say that I am sorry that the hon. Member should not have accepted, as most of the House has accepted over many years, the discretion of Mr. Speaker in matters of the kind he has raised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no"] Order.
As the hon. Member knows, past Speakers have sometimes ruled Questions out of order on the ground that they
multiplied with slight variations on the same point.
I regret that I should have had to find it necessary to apply this rule in the case of the hon. Member.
As far as I am aware, none of my predecessors has ever laid down a particular number at which this rule should always be applied. I think that it is quite right that this should be so, since some matters are more complex and more detailed than others. I do not think that in exercising my discretion as I have done on this occasion I have unfairly deprived the hon. Member of the opportunity of exploring the matter fully.
I understand that on an earlier visit to the Table Office the hon. Member was advised that the number of his Questions—it was 39 up to last night—was such as to raise the possibility of the rule being applied; and that the matter would be referred to me this morning. I myself was informed of this today and


I was satisfied that the Table Office had acted quite properly in holding back the Questions which the hon. Member handed in yesterday evening until the matter had been referred to me today.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some very important questions arise from that Ruling—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—which we as back benchers cannot allow to go unchallenged. You will be aware that several of us have an inquisitorial nature. You will no doubt be aware, as many hon. Members are aware, that if my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is not allowed to put down more than 50 Questions, there is a quite easy way of getting round that position by farming out his Questions.
My hon. Friend, if he knows anything at all, will get a dozen of us each to put in 20 Questions and the consequence will be not 50, but 240 Questions. I ask you very respectfully, Mr. Speaker, very seriously to reconsider the statement you have just made.

Mr. Speaker: I have no comment to make on the very clever Parliamentary advice which the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is giving to his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It has been the custom for many, many years—it was not invented by this Speaker—that there should be a limit to the number of Questions which were infinite variations on one topic. I am afraid that I must abide by that custom.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Further to the point of order. As one who is not unknown to ask Questions, I hope that you will bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the previous campaign for systematic inquiries conducted by my hon. Friend saved the country millions of pounds. Surely, there should be cautious treatment of any suggestion of suppressing Questions by my hon. Friend. If we are not to pursue campaigns, Mr. Speaker, for what reason are we in Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: I am certain that the hon. Member will acquit me of any opinion on any of the campaigns which hon. Members seek to pursue. On their merits or otherwise, Mr. Speaker has no opinion whatever. He has, however, to

apply common sense and see that while no hon. Member is deprived of his right to put down Questions, there is a limit to what otherwise could be an infinite variety of Questions that he would put on exactly the same topic. That, I think, makes complete sense. I hope that we can move on.

Mr. Rankin: Is not a slight change in procedure involved in the Ruling which you have just given, Mr. Speaker? You have referred to the discretion of Mr. Speaker, which we all accept, but if what you have just said becomes a Ruling the discretion of Mr. Speaker would seem to disappear and it will be replaced by a rule of the House. There is flexibility in the discretion of Mr. Speaker, but there would be no flexibility in a rule.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he has said. Certainly, Mr. Speaker is not endeavouring to make a new rule.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Without referring in any way to the present case, is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that when a Question has been answered, or the Answer has been refused, it cannot be asked again by an hon. Member during the same Session? If, however, an hon. Member can find a new Question to raise on the same subject, is it not reasonable that he should try to probe the Executive with that new Question and not be ruled out of order merely because, as the subject is a large one, it is possible to ask a great number of Questions on it?

Mr. Speaker: All these factors are in the minds of Mr. Speaker and of the Table when making the kind of decision which they make.

Mr. Heffe: Further to the point of order. The whole House will, I think, agree that this is a serious matter. I would like to ask you two points, Mr. Speaker. First, can you tell the House when the first Ruling was given, which Mr. Speaker gave it and on what precedent this is based? Secondly, on what occasion, if ever, has the House pronounced upon this matter? This will enable us to get our minds clear about future procedures.

Mr. Speaker: I have already given the Erskine May reference. There have been numbers of occasions when this


sort of thing has happened. As far as I am aware, there has been no recent general pronouncement in the House. The matter has arisen only because one hon. Member has questioned the use of the discretion of Mr. Speaker.

Dr. David Kerr: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in coming to your conclusion, you took into account the alteration in the procedure for Questions which has obtained during the last year or so? I ask this because it seems to me that the decision of the Table Office to delay until your considered opinion could be obtained deprived my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) of the right to get his Oral Question down in such time as to allow him to pursue it by the traditional House of Commons method of supplementary questioning.
This is a different matter, I submit, from the number of Questions which my hon. Friend has posed on a particular subject. It is a matter of considerable consequence if hon. Members are to be deprived by a decision of the Table Office, which is not answerable to the House, of the right to pursue a matter by supplementary questioning.
I would like further to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you would be kind enough, for the benefit of your successors, to comment on what is becoming increasingly a matter of difficulty for us back benchers. I refer to the establishment of procedure by case law. What has happened in the past may be merely habit but the moment that you pronounce that 50 Questions are the maximum this fact will be referred to by yourself and your successors as being the established procedure of the House. That is a precedent which, in all fairness to all of us, we would want to look at carefully and to do so without any disrespect to your opinion or to your right to publish that to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the House for considering this matter. A public Ruling was given in 1953–54, at Vol. 524, c. 1905/6. There were, however, similar private Rulings as early as 1899 on the same issue and later in March, 1957.
I am apprised of the problem raised by the hon. Member in the first part of his question concerning the danger of de-

priving an hon. Member of the right to get an Oral Question on the Order Paper. The position concerning Questions in general is that hon. Members submit their Questions to the Table. If the Table in some way objects to the Question on any ground whatever, the hon. Member concerned has the right to come to Mr. Speaker. Similarly, if the Table is in any doubt, it asks Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker's task is to protect the interest of every Member of the House, but also to protect the interest of the Order Paper. In a matter involving a multiplicity of Questions around the same subject, in my opinion a limit must be drawn from time to time.
The last thing that Mr. Speaker would want the House to think is that there is anything inflexible in the number 50. This is a matter which must be left to the discretion of Mr. Speaker, and, indeed, of the hon. Member in question. Most hon. Members have accepted the point of view which has been put to them from time to time over the years. I hope that we can now get on with business.

Mr. Hooley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you care to clarify the period of time over which this Ruling would apply? It is clear that to put down 50 Questions in one week on one topic might be considered unconscionable, but over a longer period even 50 Questions might not be an unreasonable number.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should not ask me to do what the House would not wish me to do by laying down hard and fast numbers or periods concerning this matter.

Sir C. Taylor: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I think that most hon. Members will be grateful to the Table Office for the advice, help and suggestions which it has given to hon. Members over the years?

Sir S. McAdden: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that by far the great majority of hon. Members are perfectly happy to leave this matter in the discretion of Mr. Speaker? I think that most hon. Members are. While there might be apprehensions against a tyrannical Speaker exercising despotic will, hon. Members


need not worry too much. There is an excellent way, well laid down, of getting rid of tyrannical Speakers. We are happy with the one we have got.

Mr. Speaker: There was an ominous suggestion in what the hon. Member has said in trying to help Mr. Speaker.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

National Minimum Income

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 24th November, I shall call attention to the need for a national minimum income, and move a Resolution.

Taxation (Separate Assessment of Wives)

Mr. Currie: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 24th November, I shall call attention to the desirability of a separate assessment of wives for taxation purposes, and move a Resolution.

Divorce Law Reform

Mrs. McKay: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 24th November, I shall call attention to the subject of divorce law reform, and move a Resolution.

Orders of the Day — FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.52 p.m.

The Minister of Social Security (Mrs. Judith Hart): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill to increase family allowances, I think I should begin by reminding the House of the principle on which our system of family allowances is based.
It is, of course, a Beveridge principle, and one which, 25 years on from Beveridge, has stood the test of time and is continually reinforced by experience. Beveridge asserted—and no one in the House would today disagree with him—that there should be "the abolition of want". He noted that the wages paid to a man represented a payment for work done and that they take no account of the family commitments and responsibilities of the wage-earner.
Beveridge recognised that, as a result, a combination of low wages and children in the family could result in poverty. He concluded that the way for the State to prevent poverty among wage-earners was to accompany the system of benefits he proposed for those whose capacity to earn was interrupted or lost by a system of universal family allowances for the children of those in work.
Beveridge's premise, his analysis, his argument, and his conclusion, are as relevant and as correct today as they were in 1942, and in 1946, when family allowances were first introduced, and in 1952 and 1956, when the Conservative Party increased them. Just what happened to the thinking of the Conservative Party from 1956 to 1964 I do not know. I suspect that the eight-year pause is to be explained by the political principles of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the political practice of his colleagues in Government at that time. It is certainly not to be explained by the disappearance of poverty during these years or by lack of evidence of it. There was, for example, the Royston Lambert


Report, on which members of the Conservative Government were questioned during this period.
Indeed. when, in 1965, in the first year of Labour Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire North (Miss Herbison) decided that an investigation into the circumstances of families was urgently needed—and it was carried out in the summer of 1966—it was because of sharp awareness that the problem and tragedy of poverty did indeed exist, but had not been fully measured on any national scale.
The Report of my Ministry's Inquiry into the Circumstances of Families was published, as the House knows, last July. I will briefly summarise its findings, because the Bill is highly relevant to them.
In the summer of 1966 there were almost 500,000 families, probably containing up to 1 ¼million children, whose incomes were at or below supplementary benefit standard. About 145,000 of these families were fatherless; 160,000 were those of men who were sick or unemployed; and 140,000 of men in full-time work. The rest were a miscellaneous group of families including, for example, families where there was no mother or where the father worked away from home.
The group which causes particular concern is about 500,000 children in about 160,000 families with resources which in June/July, 1966, were below the supplementary benefit level. They could not be brought up to that level, either because the father was in full-time work, and, therefore, not eligible for what was then National Assistance, or because he was already receiving assistance, but, because of the level of his normal earnings, could not be paid an allowance enough to bridge the gap between the family's resources and its needs. In the vast majority of these families, the father was in full-time work; the number with the father subject to the wage-stop was about 20,000—that is, only about one-eighth of these families.
I emphasise this figure because, while I well understand concern about the wage-stop—and I will say something more about it in a moment—we must remember that seven-eighths of the family poverty revealed in the Survey was not due to the wage-stop. One-eighth was.

For every one of these families below supplementary benefit level, there were others whose standard of living was equal to that guaranteed by supplementary benefit or only a little above it, again where the father was in work. Families with more than three children accounted for 30 per cent. of the 160,000 families below supplementary benefit level, and for over 50 per cent. of the children themselves.
The Bill, in increasing family allowances for the first time for 11 years, and increasing them by 7s. a week per child, as set out in Clause 1, establishes new rates of 15s. for the second child of the family and 17s. each for the third and subsequent children in the family. In doing so, it gives a higher real value to family allowances than they have ever had before.
Let me explain and emphasise this point. To restore the value of the family allowances to their level 15 years ago would demand an increase of 4s. 7d. for the second child in the family, and 2s. 7d. for later children. Instead, we are making an increase of 7s. in each case.
What does all this mean to one or two typical families? It means, for example, that where a man is earning a low wage—£12 a week—and must at present try to provide a decent life for his wife and four children, his family income will go up from £13 8s. to £14 9s.—an increase in his total family income of around 8 per cent. It means that, where a man is earning £12 a week and has three children, his family income will go up from £12 18s. to £13 2s.—an increase of 5½ per cent.
And, of course, for the larger families part of the increase has already been put into payment—to the extent of 5s. a week for fourth and subsequent children—under temporary powers conferred by Section 5 of the National Insurance Act, 1967. These powers lapse on 8th April next year, and the new rates under the Bill will begin on 9th April.
We are, in fact, discussing today a powerful attack on child poverty. It does not, of course, totally solve the problem. But before I amplify that, let me briefly indicate what else is in the Bill.
Clause 1, as I have said, fixes the new rates. It also, in subsections (2) and (3) and in Schedule 1, deals with the necessary adjustments of National Insurance


dependency benefits for children, providing an increase of 3s. for the first child, who does not qualify for family allowances, a reduction of 4s. for the second child, and a reduction of 4s. in some cases and 6s. in others for third and subsequent children.
Taken together with the family allowances increase, the net effect of these changes is to raise the total payment for each child by 3s. a week, except in certain cases for third and subsequent children, in respect of whom the total payment is already 2s. higher than for first and second children.
In these cases the increase will be 1s., so that the total of dependency benefit plus family allowances where payable will be the same regardless of the child's position in the family. The new rates, including family allowances where payable, will, therefore, be 45s. 6d. per child for widowed mother's allowance, guardian's allowance and child's special allowance, and 28s. per child for all other benefits.
It may be asked why there should be this overall increase in the provision for the children of beneficiaries when the payments for them have, over the years since the last family allowances increase, been substantially raised in successive upratings, the latest as recently as last month when dependency benefits for children were in general increased by 2s. 6d. a week.
The object of a family allowances increase, after all, is to help families who cannot be helped through the National Insurance and supplementary benefits scheme, and to restore to some extent the balance between family allowances and the benefits under those schemes; and a 3s. increase in the overall benefit to be paid in respect of children will to some extent alter the accepted relativities between the benefits for children and those for adults.
But we think it right on this occasion that the family allowances increase should not be offset in full against National Insurance dependency benefits, first, because of the higher charges for school meals, due to start next April, which may affect beneficiaries if they have other income besides their basic national insurance benefit; second, because to get family allowances, which are taxable, in exchange for sickness and unemployment benefit which are not, could actually reduce the living

standards of any people receiving benefits who have enough other income to bring them into the taxation field. The general increase of 3s. in the overall payment is designed to compensate for these effects.
Clause 2 is, as it were, an extra one. It seemed sensible to take this opportunity to meet a situation which may arise if there is any general move towards the staggering of school summer holidays. The present method of paying family allowances by annual order books means that the date on which a child will cease to qualify—usually the date on which he leaves school—has to be known over a year in advance.
At present, this works without much difficulty because there is a considerable degree of uniformity between schools as far as end-of-term dates are concerned. But any general spreading of these dates could produce serious difficulties for us in the administration of family allowances. So I want to have in reserve a power to prescribe by regulations "notional" dates which would apply for family allowances purposes. The power in the Clause is wide enough to meet Scottish variations in the timing of school holidays.
The gross cost of the family allowances increase will be about £124 million in the first year, increasing thereafter with the increase in the number of qualifying children which can be expected. There are, of course, the various consequent offsets which reduce this by £8 million.
As I have said, this Bill does not, and cannot, offer a total solution to child poverty. Any assessment of the precise degree to which it helps would have to be qualified by a good many points of doubt, and would inevitably be out of date. Let me explain why. The number of families living below the supplementary benefit level is always changing. Increases in wages reduce the figure. Increases in rents increase it. Increases in the number of families receiving rate rebates will reduce it. A higher level of unemployment may increase it. For example, it may become more difficult for the wife to earn. And the level of supplementary benefit itself is crucial.
Paradoxically, any increase in benefit which is designed to relieve the distress caused by too low an income automatically enlarges the number of people whose incomes are judged to be too low.


So the introduction of higher rates of supplementary benefit when the National Assistance scheme was superseded in November, 1966, at once apparently increased the number of families whose incomes were below their needs, even though nothing had occurred at that particular point of time to reduce their actual standard of living and even though the incomes of virtually all those receiving allowances were increased.
Frankly, this is one of my acute problems, as it was for my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North. There is no absolute standard at present by which poverty can be measured. The standards used are relative, and the standard taken by social researchers is that of the supplementary benefit level. Above it, you are not in poverty; below it, you are. This, therefore, means that whatever efforts we make to raise the actual standard of living of those who must depend upon supplementary benefit, we cannot arithmetically reduce the numbers; and, indeed, we increase the numbers of the families defined, according to the criterion of supplementary benefit standards, as living in poverty where the father is in work, but getting low wages.
Since the inquiry was carried out in June last year, there have been a number of relevant changes in the factors affecting the extent of child poverty. There have been important pay increases for major groups of lower-paid workers—for example, in the distributive trades, farm workers, and various others—to be set against the 1½ per cent. increases in prices since June, 1966; the rate rebate scheme, designed to help those on low incomes, which was only just under way then, and is now fully in operation; rent rebate schemes, which are spreading, along the lines proposed in the circular to local authorities issued by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government; but, on the other hand, there have been increases in rents.
All of these have their effect on the extent of child poverty. I leave out of account, because they are not factors relevant to the man in work, all the measures the Government have introduced to help other groups—redundancy payments, earnings-related short-term sickness and unemployment benefits, and

increases in National Insurance benefits themselves.
What these measures have done—and let no one underrate their importance, and the credit which is due to this Government for introducing them, at considerable cost, in a period of acute economic strain—is to give a higher standard of living to those who cannot work. To be sick or to be out of work does not today automatically spell poverty, as it used to.
But we are concerned today mainly with the children of men who are in work. I do not know what comments the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) will be making on the Bill. I do not know whether he shares the views of some of his hon. Friends—the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) and the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike)—who, in the last debate in the House touching on this subject, argued strongly for means-tested family allowances.
I am sorry to see that the hon. Lady will no longer be speaking from her Front Bench on these matters, though I welcome her successor. On other interests—if I do not damn him by saying so—I have always found him intelligent and sensitive. We shall be interested in his views today; although, to judge by his speech at Brighton, he also will be arguing, with a lack of any precise definition and without any regard to the real issues involved, for—as he put it at Brighton—"selective help", "preferential help" for those who are in our minds today.
The hon. Lady in April said, "Let us call a spade a shovel", because, as she said, she was a direct North Country woman. So am I, and I find "means-testing" a more honest and direct term than the hybrid and evasive terms "selectivity" or "selective help" or "preferential help" because those terms embrace, at the same time, a number of different concepts, the concepts of defining categories of people to whom universal benefits—non-means-tested benefits—are paid; of redistributing income from richer to poorer by a combination of progressive taxation and universal benefits; and—the third concept of these terms—tests of individual means for the payment of conditional benefits.
The first two of these—that is the redistribution of income from richer to poorer, and extending further the definition of those to whom universal benefits come to be paid—are wholly acceptable to me. Indeed, it is further progress along these lines which must, I believe, be the aim of a Socialist Government. Any extension of the third—the extension of tests of individual means for the payment of conditional benefits—such as is advocated by many Conservatives, is not. We have some individual means-testing at present—in the whole field of supplementary benefits, for example. But the more successful we can be in "floating people off" supplementary benefit and into the insurance system—long-term and gradual though the process may have to be—the more pleased I shall be.
I will tell the noble Lord, just in case he is tempted to argue the case for means-tested family allowances, just why he would be wrong to do so. I do it in summary form because it would take a great deal of time to expound each of my arguments in detail.
First, means-tested family allowances would be an explicit subsidy from public funds to low wages, and an implicit endorsement of low wages.
Second, they would be a disincentive to individual drive and ambition and, therefore, to greater efficiency.
Third, they would be ineffective in meeting the problem they were intended to meet, because it is an inescapable fact that no amount of persuasion or publicity can wholly overcome a clearly deep-rooted reluctance to apply for means-tested benefits, with the result that however hard one works at the problem, there is never anything approaching a 100 per cent. take-up.
Fourth, they would represent a tacit acceptance of those evils and inequalities in our society which produce the "haves" and the "have nots", and this I am not prepared ever to endorse.
Fifth, however human and sympathetic our approach—far removed, certainly, from the hard cruelty of the 'thirties—means-tested family allowances would be to some degree an affront to the human dignity of those to whom they are offered, harshly underlining the failure of a father to meet his children's needs.
Sixth, any fair scheme based on up-to-date needs would mean vast bureaucratic questioning of employers.
Seventh, means-tested family allowances would do nothing at all for families just above the level fixed for means-testing, who are only narrowly escaping poverty themselves.
As the House will appreciate, I have summarised the arguments here. But, before any hon. Members opposite speak of means-tested family allowances today, let them be sure that they have found an answer to these objections which the House will find convincing. I, for one, —I say this frankly—am not prepared to listen very hard to their arguments unless they direct them to these crucial points. Redistribution of income is a very different matter. I doubt if we shall hear hon. Members opposite addressing themselves to this theme today, though I expect to find several of my hon. Friends doing so.
Many people have argued, and argued very powerfully, that the right course is to raise family benefits across the board, as the Bill does, and simultaneously to adjust tax allowances for children so as to leave the net income of the better off no greater than before. This would be technically feasible, at least in a somewhat rough and ready way. One cannot, of course, consider the level of tax allowance for children in isolation from the level of other tax allowances or from the whole complex of direct taxation.
It certainly seems to me—and, I think, to most people—that any extra help which is given to assist poorer families should not be found wholly from the better-off families with children. It does not seem to me to be fair to leave out of account altogether the better off with no children or with grown-up children. To do so would be to imply that the nation as a whole was to be encouraged to abdicate some part of its responsibility for the wellbeing of the nation's children. This concept would certainly challenge our basic approach to a socially just system of taxation.
Any question of tax adjustment must be left to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to consider in the context of his Budget proposals in general. This means that, no matter what the right course may


later be judged to be, this Bill is necessarily silent about the taxation aspects of the proposals. But this silence does not mean that my right hon. Friend will not think about child tax allowances or, indeed, other allowances before next April. What the results of his thoughts will be must turn on the whole combination of circumstances with which he is faced; but I can say that he will be concerned to look at the question within the context of a genuinely progressive structure of direct taxation which achieves social justice.

Lord Balniel: I gather that the right hon. Lady is now leaving that point. Are we to be told how the Bill is to be financed? On the three other occasions when family allowances were introduced or were raised, we were always informed at the time how the Bill was to be financed. Do I take it that we are not to be told on this occasion?

Mrs. Hart: I have given the noble Lord the total cost involved under the Bill. He cannot expect me, in November, any more than he would expect my right hon. Friend the Chanceller, to say what will go into the next Budget. The allowances for public expenditure contain the expenditure which this Bill will involve. That is the only point about which the noble Lord need be concerned.
I want to indicate, and the House will expect me to indicate, what approach I am taking to those "pockets of poverty" which the Bill before us cannot completely remove. I have discussed the families where the father is in work. I have not yet touched on the wage-stop case. Almost all of them will be helped by the Bill.
As to the wage-stop itself, I have already told the House that the Supplementary Benefits Commission is reviewing the administration of the wage-stop, with my full support. I hope to be able to make its conclusions known very soon. They will not satisfy those of my hon. Friends who believe that the principle of the wage-stop should disappear completely from the scene. Nor—and I must give this word of caution—will they, or can they, dramatically transform the wage-stop. But they will be a real help in a number of ways to those living on wage-stopped benefit.
On the principle, may I say this to my hon. Friends? The wage-stop was originally founded on the belief that, if a man were better off out of work than in work, there would be a deterrent to working. Looking back to the discussions many years ago—in the Holman-Gregory Report on Unemployment Insurance in 1931—I have seen with interest that one of the strongest believers in the wage-stop, on these grounds, was Beatrice Webb. But our knowledge of human motivations is a good deal greater now than it was then.
I am convinced, and have said, that, where a man freely chooses to stay at home with nothing to do rather than to do a day's work, there are usually indications of maladjustment to the society he lives in. That is a problem for social case work and for the mental health services. But "workshy"—I put the word in inverted commas—is a term of moral judgment, not a psychological judgment and not a social judgment; and it is not, in my view, particularly appropriate or helpful in considering this problem. I recognise that there is a small minority of men living in, and adjusted to, deviant sub-cultures of their own, as it were, who try to make use of State benefits as a basis for a life of petty crime and the like. We have our methods for dealing with those people.
What must be understood is that there is another element in the argument. It cannot be dismissed, and it is the major element today, more important than the deterrent-to-work argument of the past. It is that it is manifestly unfair to the man in work that he should have a lower income than the man who used to do exactly the same job who is now out of work. This is why the T.U.C. would be concerned if the wage-stop were ended. This is why one cannot lightly sweep way the wage-stop or suspend it.
But what this points to is that we should all be gravely concerned that low earnings exist. If there were not low earnings, the wage-stop would be irrelevant to the problem of child poverty. To put it another way, it was not the wage-stop which brought these families into poverty. They were already in poverty when the father was in work; and their poverty was due, and is still due, to his low wages.
My hon. Friends are already concentrating more public attention on this heart


of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) has indicated that he intends to introduce it for discussion shortly in the House. The whole question leads straight into a discussion of the concept of a minimum wage, the difficulties involved in it, and where we should go from here on this question. A good starting point for that discussion is Frances Stewart's article in The Times today, which was an excellent one and which makes that point.
In any such discussion, one ought not to forget that the whole group of low wage-earners contains within it various more specific problems. There are, I suggest, the following elements. There are fit and intelligent men who work in occupations in which wage rates are low. There are the disabled who can rarely find well paid jobs. There are the partly disabled, and I have a very limited but, I hope, useful survey in three selected areas taking place at the moment which may throw more light on their problems. There are the frankly problem cases, whether maladjusted, or, in a very small number of cases, perhaps unwilling to work.
These are the families with which social workers are accustomed to deal, the ones which present the problems to professional case workers. We can, I believe, best make our approach to the whole problem by trying to work out the answer which is right for each element; in other words, breaking down the problem into its component elements, seeing what is right for each, and in this context considering the best answer to low wages.
The sick and unemployed constitute roughly another 30 per cent. of the group who were studied in 1966. Not all were in poverty. Many have already been given real help by the two increases in supplementary benefit rates in November last year and last month, and by redundancy payments and short-term earnings-related benefits. That is not, of course, the end of the story. But it is an important part.
Of the rest, about 10 per cent. are a miscellaneous group—mother ill, father away from home and no money. For them, poverty is often temporary, sometimes more long-lasting. But the remaining group are children in fatherless

families. This is a very special problem, in which wrong social attitudes, unfortunately, all too often condition the community's response. If the mother is not in work—probably because she is looking after her child—she reaches the supplementary benefit standard we have now established, and, by the definition used at the moment to measure poverty, she is not in poverty. But what if she is at work? She is helped by the Bill if she has more than one child.
The residual problem, however, is that of the mother with one child—whether she is unmarried or her marriage has broken up, whether she is separated or whatever her condition may be—who is working to support her child, but cannot earn enough. Her problems are a complex of low wages, housing difficulties, and the care of her child during the day. They demand all our compassion and understanding. I am intensely aware of them and am trying to take a hard look at them. I cannot say more than that this afternoon. It will take some time to have such a look at that kind of residual problem.
In the context of the Bill, I have tried this afternoon to analyse the nature of the problems facing us if we are to end child poverty. There can be no one in the House who is not deeply distressed and angry to know that the families we have talked about are struggling desperately, often in despair, to keep warm, to find a blanket for their child's bed and to pick up a coat in a jumble sale. My mother used to tell me of the day when she was a child, 60 years ago, at the turn of the century, when for her family an orange shared among five children was a highlight. But at the turn of the century all the hardships and deprivations of poverty were part of the normal life of the working class in this country.
We have advanced. My hon. Friends, in particular, know why and how we have advanced. But we cannot claim to be a totally civilised society until we have ended—not helped, but ended�žpoverty. The Bill is a substantial and important contribution to ending it, but the Government will not be content until we have found ways of so mobilising the compassion and concern of which I am convinced there is an abundance in our society that we can see the way ahead to ending poverty completely.

4.24 p.m.

Lord Balniel: On behalf of the whole House I express our appreciation to the right hon. Lady the Minister of Social Security for a lucid and thoughtful speech in introducing the Bill. I also thank her for her kind personal remarks, and join her in telling my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) how sad it is that because of her ill-health it has fallen to me to speak first for the Opposition in this debate.
We are grateful to the right hon. Lady for her lucid explanation of the Bill, because the subject is of immense complexity and difficulty, although the Bill may seem relatively simple. It is also a subject in which vast sums of public money are involved, and in which there is a whole multitude of inter-related problems, inter-related causes of poverty and inter-related methods, be they care or cash, by which poverty can be relieved. Like the right hon. Lady, I take the opportunity of a Second Reading debate to discuss the principles behind the Bill. I should like to concentrate on them now, and perhaps we could leave the detailed aspects of the Bill to the Committee stage.
Social care is an immensely complicated subject. The reasons for poverty and the means of helping to eliminate or diminish it vary from family to family and from person to person. But the objective all hon. Members share is absolutely straightforward and simple. It is to eliminate child poverty from our society. The elimination of child and family poverty must be our supreme social objective. The quality of the Government's legislation and their intellectual thinking on the matter will be judged by that criterion—by their success in achieving that objective.
It is a simple but appalling fact that there are today 160,000 families, containing half a million children, living not at what is usually described as the poverty line, as defined by the supplementary benefit level, but below that level, which is still usually called by most people the assistance scale level. The Ministry believes that the figure of 160,000 families is probably an overestimate. For reasons which I shall explain later, I believe that it is probably an under-estimate. It is equally a simple and appalling fact that once the Bill is passed half of those children will still be living in families which are below the

supplementary benefit level, below what the great mass of the population regards as the absolute minimum standard of life acceptable in a society which has achieved the degree of well-being which we have reached.
At a time of severe restraint on the wages of the low income groups and of rising short-time working we welcome the fact that benefits for families with children are to be increased. But there is a very deep and serious obligation on us to study and examine the means by which the Government are undertaking this responsibility. As the Minister said, £120 million will be spent right across the board, going to rich and poor alike—and as a father of four children I am glad that I shall be one of the beneficiaries of the right hon. Lady's actions. That sum will rise each year. The cost of family allowances will rise from £146 million to £270 million. After Income Tax adjustments, the net increased cost will be £83 million.
Because of the thinking behind the Bill there are one or two salient points which we should call to the attention of the House. First of all, there is this fact which I have already mentioned, that 250,000 children will be left below what it generally regarded as being the minimum poverty line accepted in society. These are, as the right hon. Lady explained, very largely children in families where the breadwinner is in employment on a very low income scale. As he is in employment he cannot apply for supplementary benefit. Also, to a much smaller extent, these are children living in families where the breadwinner is unemployed and, because of his previous low earnings, is "wage-stopped". One-eighth of these 250,000 children are living in wage-stopped families.
Like the right hon. Lady, I very much hope that it will not be so very long before she can come before the House and announce new arrangements for diminishing the harsh effect of the wage-stop. I hope, for instance, that it may be possible to find ways whereby those people who are out of employment and are being wage-stopped and are disabled or only capable of light work may be relieved of the impact of the wage-stop.
That is the first of the points which emerge from the Bill. The second is


that the Bill will not give any extra help to the 120,000 families with 333,000 children who are at the moment living on the supplementary benefit level. Their family allowance is increased, but immediately the supplementary benefit which they receive is reduced. So these families living on the supplementary benefit level receive no benefit from the Bill.
There are also the sick, the unemployed, and the widowed mothers. The sick, the unemployed, and the mothers with children to look after will not get the full 7s. increase in family allowance, because, of course, their child dependency allowance under the State insurance scheme will be reduced. These figures, I admit, are a little bit complicated, but if the House will bear with me for a moment I will try to explain why this is so.
A man who is sick or is unemployed, with two children, for instance, at the moment receives a cash family allowance of 8s. He receives the insurance dependency allowance of 17s. In fact, his family receives £1 5s. Under the Bill they will not be receiving an increase of 7s. Under the Bill the cash family allowance will go up to 15s., the insurance dependency allowance will go down to 13s., and so the total which they will receive is, in fact, an increase of 3s.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I may not have followed his total figures, but under the dependency scheme there will be an increase for the first child of 3s. There will be an increase under the Bill of 3s. for the first child, an increase of 3s. for the second child, so that the two-child family will get an increase of 6s. as against the 7s. which is proposed.

Lord Balniel: These are immensely complex figures to work out. I think that perhaps, if I may suggest it to the hon. Gentleman, what we should do is to put down some Parliamentary Questions to ascertain exactly what the impact of this particular proposal is, but he, I think, will be the first to agree that the sick, the unemployed, and the widowed mothers will not, in fact, be receiving the 7s. increase which it is generally expected is to be given to them.

Mrs. Hart: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find, when he has an opportunity of reading my speech—and this is an immensely complicated subject, I agree, and I gave a lot of figures in a fairly short time—that most of the figures that he wants are, in fact, there.

Lord Balniel: I am glad to hear that. If one of these worries which I have is diminished I am very pleased indeed, but it does not alter what seems to be the very great worries which I have already expressed about the children who are at the moment below the supplementary benefit level.

Mr. Loughlin: rose

Lord Balniel: I cannot have continuous interventions.

Mr. Loughlin: I was only saying the hon. Gentleman was right.

Lord Balniel: I was right. I am glad to hear that.

Mr. Loughlin: May I elaborate? What I meant was that the hon. Gentleman was right in the principle. I do not want him to assume that he was totally wrong. The only thing on which I corrected him was the precise figure he was using in relation to the two-child family.

Lord Balniel: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I have mentioned the children living in families below the supplementary level. I have also mentioned the children living in families at the supplementary level, the sick, the unemployed, the widowed mothers, not receiving the full increase of 7s. which is generally assumed they will be getting as the result of this Bill. But, of course, all other families in receipt of family allowances will get an extra 7s. per week per allowance, although this increase is to be reduced, if they are paying Income Tax at the standard rate, to something like 4s. 9d.
There is one other feature which emerges more, I think, from the right hon. Lady's speech than from the Bill. It is that so far we have not been told how this is to be paid for. This surely is an absolutely extraordinary omission from the speech, for this will involve the taxpayers in additional expenditure of £120 million. It will involve an immediate net increase of £83 million. Moreover, the


omission is contrary to what happened on the three previous occasions, when always we knew how the money was to be raised.
I think that the right hon. Lady's speech was also designed to hide something much more fundamental. This is something which is apparent to us on these benches, but, I believe, is becoming increasingly apparent to the country as a whole, and is slowly but steadily percolating into the understanding of hon. Gentlemen behind her. It is that there has now been an almost total breakdown in the development of a coherent social strategy designed to help those in the greatest need.
The panaceas of the election have been abandoned—the minimum guaranteed income scheme, the half pay on retirement, the graduated increase in family allowance according to age, the steep rise in family allowances for children staying on at school, the reconstruction of the family allowance system, the abolition of the wage-stop. In their place, we have a social services review, which has been undertaken by three successive senior Ministers without any staff, and which has already taken longer than the whole of the Beveridge Report, and which is not yet published.
Also, we have something which is, I think, apparent to the country as a whole, that these overlords of social service strategy have completely lost strategic control of the Ministries concerned, because this Bill goes clean 100 per cent. contrary to the views of at least two of the Ministers concerned. I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Lady, but I am willing to prove that point absolutely to the hilt.
Of course, every person in this country wants to avoid any avoidable poverty, and one of the great achievements of the past 15 to 20 years has been that with full employment, with economic growth, with higher wages, with reduced taxation, more and more families have been able to stand on their own feet and provide for themselves.
I admit that an enormous amount still has to be done, but the very fact that society as a whole is better off makes it the more unacceptable and inexcusable that there should be any avoidable concentration of poverty, and sometimes

grinding poverty, for some of its members. We all want to diminish it. But our belief is that the philosophy which lies behind the Bill and is exemplified by it, far from ending family poverty, is likely to perpetuate it beyond the time when it could have been ended.
It is not only the mismanagement of the economy, although probably that is the most harmful of all features. Genuine social progress can only be achieved by economic growth. In 1963, the economy grew by 4·1 per cent.; in 1964, by 5·9 per cent.; in 1965, with the new Government, it grew by 2·5 per cent.; last year, it grew by 1·5 per cent. The general economic position of the country is crucial to the elimination of family poverty. A stagnant economy and the pushing up of unemployment, which we understand from the Chancellor's speech yesterday to be deliberate policy, frustrates all our efforts.
The reason I believe that the number of families living below the supplementary benefit level is more than 160,000, with their half million children, is that since the figures quoted by the right hon. Lady were published in the survey of July, 1966, there have been the continuation of the wage freeze and the period of severe restraint, there have been rising prices, particularly those of fuel, there has been a cutting down of overtime, and there has been the impact of the utterly grotesque Selective Employment Tax, which has hit hardest at the least able employees, such as the disabled—the tax which was described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) as "economically illiterate".
We have seen a whole picture develop of the way in which the hardest hit by our economic difficulties have been the lowest income families. As it is quite clear that those figures are out of date, can the Minister say whether she has any more recent ones showing the number of families and the number of children living below the supplementary benefit level?
However, it is not only the economic factors which are crucial. It is the way in which the Labour Government respond to a social need. Their response is meant generously, of course, and it seems generous. Unfortunately, it has the effect almost invariably of achieving the exact


opposite of what is intended. If there is a need, the response is that it must be met by indiscriminate relief paid for by the tax payer. If there are some children in need, then all family allowances must be increased. If there are some families who cannot pay their rent, then all council house tenants must be subsidised. The result is that the more the money is spent on those not in need, the less money there is available to spend on those who are desperately in need.
The right hon. Lady described the Bill as a great social contribution towards the elimination of family poverty. However, it is an indiscriminate measure, and it is for that reason that, at the end of the day, with the passing of the Bill, there will be still a quarter of a million children living below the supplementary benefit level. What do the Government propose to do to bring them up to supplementary benefit level?
In his speech to the Labour Party conference, the Leader of the House seemed to abandon all hope of helping these children by means of social security. He said:
We think that a national minimum wage has much more to do with this question than social security. We cannot deal with the fundamental problem of low wages by social security regulations.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Lord Balniel: Hon. Members opposite say "Hear, hear", and they are right. In the long term, one wants to see minimum wages raise all people above the level of supplementary benefit. But every day in which the present Government remain in office sees that day receding.
How very odd, though, it was for the Leader of the House to have made that statement. After all, he is a Minister responsible for imposing the wage freeze on the country. How very odd it is that he should have made it only two days after his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer poured an absolute Niagara of cold water on the very concept of a national minimum wage when he said that to impose a national minimum wage of £15 a week would cost something like £750 million. If the Government are proposing to do that, let them get up and say so, because that would answer my questions.

Mrs. Hart: The noble Lord would have done well to attend the Scarborough conference as well as Brighton. If he had, he would know that my right hon. Friend was putting certain highly relevant points to trade unionists on this whole matter of how, when and why.

Lord Balniel: If that is the right hon. Lady's answer to my question about how to tackle the problem of a quarter of a million children below supplementary benefit level, it is not something which will satisfy the House. Nor, I suspect, will it carry conviction to the benches behind her, because her hon. Friends have given up hope of a national minimum wage at that level being established in the lifetime of the present Parliament, at least.
I have spoken of the Government's approach. Our approach can best be described as an interlocking theme of concentrating help on where it is most needed and giving encouragement to all who are able to stand on their own feet and provide for themselves. Although the right hon. Lady may not believe in it, we believe in concentrating help on those groups of families or people amongst whom there is the greater concentration of poverty. There are various methods by which it could be done. Here I am not talking about the system of national insurance where there is a big insurance component. I am not talking about national insurance for retirement, for unemployment, for widowhood and for sickness. I am talking about family allowances.
Such people in the greatest need could be helped, admittedly in a rough and ready fashion, by a special child allowance being made for the largest families, where it is known that there is a concentration of poverty. The fact that the Government have advanced increases in family allowances for the largest families is an indication that they realise that a concentration of poverty exists there.
There could also be a concentration of help on families where the children are rather older. Every mother knows that the cost of maintaining a child aged 12, for instance, is larger than the cost of maintaining a smaller child. Those are two rough and ready ways.
I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite why they have not done it? Do they disagree


with it? It is worth reminding them of the promise on which they won the election. They read as follows—
Labour will replace inadequate maintenance grants with reorganised family allowances, graduated according to the age of the child, with a particularly steep rise for those remaining at school after the statutory leaving age.
There are three promises in that one sentence. They promised to replace inadequate maintenance grants. They remain in fact exactly as they were in 1957. They promised to graduate the family allowances according to the age of the child. They have not done it. They promised a particularly steep rise for those remaining at school after the statutory leaving age. They have not done it. One sentence—three promises broken.
These are various ways in which perhaps rough and ready justice could be done to families in the great poverty. But probably a more interesting line to study deeply is the Danish system. I would be interested to hear if the Parliamentary Secretary could say what studies have been made of the Danish system. Putting it into its English equivalent, what it roughly involves is linking the structure of family allowances to P.A.Y.E. and so automatically taking into account earnings and responsibilities. Just as there are tax tables under the P.A.Y.E. system for the taxes which have to be paid, so it is surely feasible to devise family benefit tables so that family benefits will be paid out weekly, taking into account the earnings and the responsibilities of the families concerned.
I ask the Government to study such a scheme very deeply, more particularly because the man who has given the most constructive thought to the matter on the Government side is the former Minister attending this debate. He felt that a scheme along these lines would contain some considerable merit.
The Labour Party epitomises its belief in indiscriminate assistance by this Bill, which, because it is so vastly expensive, means that only a thin, inadequate smear of help can be given to those who are in the greatest need. Not only is their philosophy very odd, but their conduct is incredible.
When the announcement of the increased family allowances was made,

the then Minister of Social Security resigned, and we have not yet had one word of explanation for her resignation.
In the debate on family poverty the Minister responsible for social security said:
Another method of helping is by a general increase in family allowances, but would this be the best way of using scarce resources when so much needs to be done over the whole field of social services, not only cash payments as the hon. Lady said, but in health, in housing and in education? We all know that much needs to be done here, and we as a Government have decided that this method would not be the best way of helping. An increase of 10s. would cost about £160 million net. A 5s. increase would raise only a small proportion of the families up to or above the supplementary benefit level, and the cost would be about £80 million net."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1967; Vol. 745, c. 849–50.]
That was on the 20th April, and yet, exactly three months later, that is precisely what the Government have done, except that they have not increased it by 10s., they have increased it by 7s., and they have left 51 per cent. of the children below supplementary benefit level still below supplementary benefit level.
What happened? What blew hon. Gentlemen off course? Was it a communist plot? Was it panic? Was it the humiliation of the debate, or was it some by-elections? What is even more extraordinary—the right hon. Lady, for whom I have the greatest respect, was not in the Cabinet, and she was not in charge of the social service review, and she resigned, so the Government can easily say that her views are not the views of the Government.
More extraordinarily though is that on the same day, the 20th April, 1967, the Minister without Portfolio, the unfortunate right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker), in charge in the social service review, said—

Mr. Loughlin: Why unfortunate?

Lord Balniel: Because he keeps losing constituencies.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: And losing cases, too.

Lord Balniel: And losing cases, as my right hon. Friend mentions.
On that same day, the right hon. Member for Leyton, the Minister in charge of the social service review, said,
One way which attracts very little support is to raise"—[Interruption.]


Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would listen to what the Cabinet Minister said.
One way which attracts very little support is to raise family allowances all round and pay for that out of general taxation. The cost would be £160 million. Even with family allowances being taxable, it would give all sorts of odd sums to all sorts of people, according to their income, which they did not really need, and it would be very expensive. It is not likely to be supported very widely."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1967; Vol. 745, c. 932.]
Yet three months later the same Minister comes down and introduces the Bill which we are discussing today. We have had no explanation whatsoever from the Government as to this 100 per cent. reversal of their policy. It is for this reason that I tell the House that there has been in the Government a total breakdown of a coherent social strategy, and this is widely appreciated throughout the country. I do not think that there is only an anger in the country. There is just a deep sadness that all which was promised is in fact abandoned.
I apologise for taking up the time of the House, but I must refer to the question as to how this is to be paid for. The Minister in charge of the social service review has hinted that one of the means of financing these indiscriminate family allowances is that tax relief given for children of income tax payers should be abolished or reduced. He said, when he announced the increase in family allowances, that this would be "logical". To me it is illogical and unwise.
The whole House owes an exceedingly great debt of gratitude to the hard working body of people who form the Child Poverty Action Group. They, and other academic groups and sociologists, have done much to highlight the problem of child poverty. However, I do think that, in their advocacy of a system of increased flat rate family allowances and the abolition or the reduction of tax allowances, they are following policies which could well be counter productive.
Our tax system—quite rightly, I believe—takes account of the fact that a married man with children has greater commitments than a married man without them. It seems to me that it rightly fits the text of "To each according to his needs. From each according to his means" If the Government finance the Bill by reducing the tax relief for children,

or by abolishing it, as has been suggested, they will in fact increase direct personal taxation. This will be completely contrary to the promise given by the Prime Minister one day before voting, but that is so utterly unimportant now that it hardly enters into the argument.
To me, as a matter of principle, there is a vast difference between the State giving a family allowance paid for out of taxation, and the children's allowance which allows the breadwinner of a family with children to keep a higher proportion of his earnings because he has greater commitments and heavier expenses than the breadwinner who does not have children.
The Government have to find a gross sum of £120 million, or a net sum of £83 million. I find it a constitutional impropriety that the Bill—

Mrs. Hart: Rubbish.

Lord Balniel: The right hon. Lady can say "rubbish", but she will perhaps remember that when in 1945 the Government first introduced family allowances they announced them and the method of financing them in one statement, and that has been the constitutional practice ever since. To come to the House and say that we have to finance something costing £120 million, and to give no indication of how that money is to be found, except perhaps the hint that it will be found by the abolition, or reduction, of children's allowances, is a constitutional impropriety.
The Bill is confined to cash benefits, but the reasons for child poverty and family poverty cannot be eliminated purely by cash benefits. A whole range of different problems is involved. Poverty tends to be concentrated in certain areas. Neither personal poverty nor area poverty can be eliminated purely by cash benefits. Poverty is a vicious circle made up of a shortage of cash, bad housing conditions, below-average educational facilities, below average health facilities, poor nutrition, in fact, the whole bleak environment of the most poverty stricken areas which disfigure some of our cities.
In many ways—and this is the depressing thing—this poverty is self-perpetuating. It is being passed on from our generation to our children, and from them to their children. These areas should be given positive concentration of help, and


the theme which I have adopted throughout my speech is that the best way of eliminating poverty, whether in a family or in an area, is to bring concentrated help to them. For this reason I welcome the Government's action in accepting the Plowden Committee's recommendation that a positive concentration of help should be given with regard to education.
Many of our social services are very line indeed. Those who voluntarily or professionally devote their lives to these services are fine and wonderful people to whom I pay tribute. But when I look at the social services available in this country I am left with the overwhelming impression of a lack of coherent strategic planning. When we are dealing with problems of family breakdown, whether it is a shortage of cash, or delinquency, or ill-health, or bad housing, or mental handicap, or physical stress, all too often we see some families inundated with a whole variety of different social workers. Yet we all know of other families with equally desperate problems but who are left unattended, lonely and bewildered.
What is required is a major reconstruction of the health and welfare services focused on the family rather than on the symptoms, but this improvement in these services must be combined with a concentration of cash benefits to help those families. I believe that this will come about only by a far grater integration of care and cash than has been achieved so far. The demarcation disputes between the various Ministries must cease.

Mrs. Hart: What about the Seebohm Committee?

Lord Balniel: I know that it has been set up. The only letter which I have ever written to The Times recommended the setting up of this kind of committee several years ago. Indeed. I can tell the right hon. Lady what ought to be some part of the Committee's decision. There ought to be generic training for social workers, and there ought to be a good career structure for them, but I fear that this is taking us beyond the debate.

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree with him on many points. I was only trying to say that I was glad that he was urging this on his side of the House, because the Conservatives had

plenty of time to set up such a Committee.

Lord Balniel: The right hon. Lady has been very rash in interrupting me, because the Seebohm Committee will, I hope, establish the need for the integration of the health and welfare services at local level. However, it is my opinion that this integration of care and cash should be carried out not merely at local level, but at the centre. It is the failure to achieve this integration—and this is not being covered by the Seebohm Committee—of the services of the Ministry of Health, the cash of the Ministry of Social Security, and perhaps the children's department of the Home Office, which is one of the basic reasons why there has been a complete lack of a coherent strategic policy from hon. Gentlemen opposite.

5.8 p.m

Mr. Michael Barnes: In view of the large number of families who are still living in poverty, the Bill is obviously welcome for the help which it will give them, but after the many references by Government spokesmen since the end of last year to the plans which they are making, when the increase in family allowances was made known last July I felt that it was disappointing. I remembered that at one time the Government referred to their plans as "their new plans for family endowment", a very impressive title indeed.
We are told that social security spending is up by about 50 per cent. compared with 1964. We are also told that there has been a dramatic deployment of resources in favour of those people in greatest need. We are very grateful for the many major social reforms that the Government have carried through, but it is impossible to accept these two statements completely uncritically.
Many of the statistics which the Government are putting out at the moment are in terms of the increased amount of money which is being spent this year as compared with 1964. It is a mistake of the Government too often to measure achievements in terms of the amount of money they can or are spending on a project. There are other criteria, especially in social security, in respect of


which it is a question of how the money is spent which is important, rather than how much is spent.
As for the statement about a dramatic deployment of resources in favour of those in greatest need, I can only say that several of the most eminent social scientists in this country would not accept it. They would say that the middle income groups have benefited considerably. There is also the problem of making sure that those who are able to claim various benefits know how to claim them and do claim them.
The Minister has referred to the survey of the circumstances of families. This gave us an insight into the size of the problem, and we learned that it is a much larger one than we realised. My right hon. Friend told us that the survey had shown that there were half a million families, with one-and-a-quarter million children, living in poverty, as judged by the supplementary benefits standards. I did not agree with what she was saying when she made the point about relative poverty as compared with absolute poverty.
My right hon. Friend was saying that we must remember that as we raise the supplementary benefit level more people will be in poverty, but it is only relative poverty. I should have thought that poverty, certainly in advanced nations, is largely a relative question. What is poor in one country is not poor in another, and we must expect that as our society goes forward we should constantly raise our definition of poverty—but it is still poverty, at any given time.
We are now approaching the beginning of winter, which is a time of year when poverty is felt most acutely and when people have to spend a lot of money on keeping warm. There is no doubt that many poor families keep warm by electricity—and electricity is one of the least efficient and most expensive ways of keeping warm. In winter, clothes must be bought, and children must have good hot meals inside them. Even if the Government cannot go further at the moment than the solutions envisaged in the Bill I ask them to consider three additional things that could and should be done this winter.
First, the Government should pay the full increase of 7s. for all families where there are two or more children. That should be paid now, instead of merely 5s. out of the 7s. for a fourth and subsequent children. I find it difficult to understand why the Government decided to make the split in this way when they had the results of the survey. The Minister quoted one statistic to try to support the splitting of the allowance in this way but I did not think that it was a good statistic to quote. A much more relevant one was that which showed that two-thirds of the very poor families, where the father is a full-time worker, are families where there are no more than three children. These families need help for this winter.
Secondly, the Government should abolish the wage-stop. The Minister has estimated that only about 20,000 families will be affected, comprising about 150,000 children. The wage-stop may make sense when we have a booming economy and are in a period of full employment, but in many cases it is acting very harshly at present.
Thirdly—and this is most important—the Government should institute an all-out campaign to make sure that people are aware of the other benefits to which they are entitled. These range from rate rebates and rent rebates, where they are in operation, through school meals, help with clothes for school children, and welfare milk. An astonishing and serious figure that was mentioned in the survey was that two-thirds of the children whose fathers are in full-time work and who were entitled to free school meals were paying for them.
Not least in the matter of benefits that people can claim there is the protection which the 1965 Rent Act gave to families who feel that they are paying an unfair rent. The survey showed that 80,000 families who were tenants of private landlords felt that they were paying unfair rents but that of those 80,000 only 5 per cent. had applied to the rent officer or the rent tribunal.
On 24th July my right hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker)—when Minister without Portfolio—announcing the increases, said:
We shall arrange publicity campaigns to see that families are quite clear what they


can get and how to get it. The arrangements are being reviewed so as to make it easy for them to exercise their rights without embarrassment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1967; Vol. 750, c. 57.]
This is something which should be speeded up and put into effect for this winter. I am not aware of any advance in this matter so far.
The Government should also coordinate the efforts of local authorities in this matter. The Guardian threw out the astonishing fact, in a little survey that it did on 3rd October, that a man said that he was entitled to help with school clothes for one of his children who was just going to school but that he could not get this until the child had been at school for three months. That is clearly absurd.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the three suggestions that I have made—the paying of the increase for second and subsequent children; the abolition of the wage-stop, and an all-out campaign to make sure that people know what they should he getting and how they can get it, and to consider whether they ought not to be implemented in time for this winter.
My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the long-term problem of poverty is basically the problem of low wages. She says that low wages represent seven-eighths of the problem. It is a problem of the many people who have been left behind in our society. Inevitably this will happen when changes are taking place and there is a shake-out in industry and redeployment, but we must find a solution to help those who are affected by it.
My right hon. Friend was also right to point out that when the Tories refer to selectivity they refer to a means test solution to the problem. This solution is not acceptable to most hon. Members on this side of the House. I do not believe that it is acceptable to those who would benefit from it. The extent to which the selective services that we have are under-used is a very good argument in support of the fact that the means test is not acceptable to those who would benefit.
But provided we have as a base in our society what Professor Titmuss describes as
an infrastructure of social welfare utilised and approved by the non-poor as well as the poor

I feel that there is room for selectivity on top of that, if an acceptable way of introducing it can be found. Such a way is the negative Income Tax solution put forward, whereby we use the Income Tax system as a test of family means so that not only are those who pay Income Tax means-tested by the tax system but those who do not pay Income Tax are tested to see for what allowances they qualify. Such a system, used properly, could be a genuine Socialist instrument to redistribute wealth. It should, of course, cover all the individual factors which cause poverty.
This relates, for example, to rents. The survey showed that a very high percentage—about 20 per cent—of really poor families were living in private rented accommodation. In some of our big cities, where I would expect this proportion to be concentrated, high rents are a major cause of family poverty. If some of my hon. Friends asked whether I suggest subsidising the private landlord who is perhaps getting too much in rent anyway, I would deny that. We should make sure that the rent legislation which we have introduced really works, so that we do not subsidise high rents but help people who cannot pay fair rents.
We are told that such a system must be some years off, because it would have to be computerised and it would be difficult for the Inland Revenue to cope with it, so in the meantime we must ensure that these individual pockets of poverty are not passed by. The Government are right to talk about extending the insurance principle. The Minister said at Scarborough:
I accept means testing at the paying-in end",
as distinct from the receiving end. But there will always be minority groups whose needs are difficult to meet on a group basis. I ask the Government to be aware of their predicament, so that they are not penalised simply because they cannot be conveniently categorised.
As the Minister suggested, in the long run a decent minimum wage is the basic answer to the problem, plus, perhaps, higher family allowances on the pattern of the Common Market countries as we bring our tax and social structure more into line with theirs, but that is another question, involving other Ministries.


I congratulate the Government on the Bill, although I wish that it went much further. I wish the Minister luck in her new appointment. She has a very difficult task in dealing with the complicated situation of poverty in our affluent society, but I am sure that she has the energy and the determination to carry this through, and the good wishes of everyone on this side. I hope that she can find the right solution.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. John Astor: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), who gave a half-hearted reception to the Bill, pointing out that many pockets of poverty are still uncatered for and looking forward, apparently, to the distant future, when solutions will be found. My noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) referred to the quotation from the right hon. Gentleman who was then Minister without Portfolio, when he poured cold water on this system of trying to solve poverty among families with children. He said that it would give all sorts of odd sums to all sorts of people, according to their income.
The Bill provides £124 million, some of which will benefit children in real need, which everyone will welcome, but many of us wonder whether much of this money could not have been better spent by concentrating on areas with even greater poverty, urgency and need, and fear that the more that Government resources are committed overall in this way, the smaller are the chances of some of these individual pockets having their needs met.
If anyone doubts that there are real pockets of need, I would refer to the disabled and the chronically sick. The right hon. Lady will already know that someone with, for instance, multiple sclerosis receives a much smaller benefit than someone who is industrially injured or has a wartime disability pension. No one doubts that those subject to special risk, either because of the industry in which they work or because of war, should be provided with a disability pension if necessary, but the problem for the ordinary "civilian" disabled is not how they contracted the disability but the degree of disability which they suffer.

The Government have been looking at this problem now for three years and I hope that the final answer will emerge and that they will seriously consider bringing into line these "civilian" disablement benefits.
An even worse and more anomalous case is that of the disabled housewife who is entitled to no benefit at all. An article in one of the papers yesterday stated:
To be a disabled housewife is to be, as far as the Welfare State is concerned, invisible. Apart from direct medical help, you do not exist. The family budget is presumed not to be upset by your inability to work in the home …
This is a glaring example. Many disabled housewives prefer to live at home to keep the family together, but they know that, without financial help—to which they should be entitled—they can impose a further burden on their family, which already has the worries and anxieties of relying on the mechanical equipment to keep the invalids alive. If anything goes wrong, their lives may not last long.
Society should be able to relieve them of at least some of their financial worries. Not much money is involved. Even a few pounds a week would enable the invalids to employ home help or a constant attendant who could look after them and relieve them and their families of a great deal of worry. Government spokesmen have said that they are considering these questions urgently in the general view. I hope that the urgency will be emphasised, because the lives of these people are more liable to be curtailed than those of healthy people.
They have been extremely patient. It is not as if they have done nothing to help themselves. Many hon. Members will know of outstanding examples of courage and determination to overcome physical handicaps among their constituents. I hope that something will be done soon, as many of these people who would like to continue living at home simply will not be able to do so for financial reasons. They will reluctantly resign themselves to entering a hospital or even a geriatric ward. As a matter of economics, this is much more expensive for the State, because a hospital bed can cost anything up to £80 a week, and if it is used by an invalid who could equally well be at home this deprives another patient of a


hospital's benefits and facilities. Many hon. Members realise the urgency of the problem.
In a letter I received recently, a gentleman who signed himself "An ex-Labour Party Supporter" wrote:
I have been a Labour supporter all my life, even a well-known member of the local Labour Party, and a strong trade unionist
The next phrase is underlined:
But never again. To allow more money to the children (which they won't get) and totally to ignore the totally disabled is nothing but a glaring anomaly. They (the Labour Party) have given money to everyone but the blind, the totally disabled from strokes, the heart cases and the paralysed. When, where and how does she expect these people to live?
He is referring to the former Minister of Social Security. He adds,
For obvious reasons I cannot give my name and address but please, if you can, read this letter in Parliament and see whether you can't get this woman to do something".
I do not wish to associate myself in any discourtesy to the right hon. Lady the previous Minister of Social Security, but I sympathise with the sentiments which that gentleman expressed and I hope that even if the Government will not be stirred in in this direction by hon. Members on these benches, they will take note of what one of their ex-supporters thinks of their lack of activity in this direction.

Mr. Loughlin: If the hon. Member is in sympthy with that letter, will he vote against the Bill? The Bill deals with giving money for the children.

Mr. Astor: I said earlier that everybody appreciates that the Bill will help some children where help is needed. But it is a pity, as one right hon. Gentleman and one right hon. Lady opposite have said, that the Government have adopted this method, which is not the best way of doing it.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. William Price: I do not like Ministers and I am coming to the view that they do not like me. Indeed, I have long held the belief that we shall not solve the problems of this country until we sweep away the Front Benches on both sides of the House. But there is always an exception, and in my case the exception is the Ministry of Social Security, which has the advantage of a splendid Minister, two capable and humane Parliamentary Secretaries, and a former Minister who holds a unique posi-

tion in the Labour movement. In my view, and whatever is said by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), they have been doing a grand job on behalf of the under-privileged people of the country.
It gives me no pleasure, therefore, to say that I think that they are wrong tonight and that they have presented a Bill which is based upon dogma rather than upon the facts of a difficult and often tragic situation. What have they done? They have tried to solve child poverty, for which we must all share the blame, in a way which will clear them of the indictment of having introduced a means test. The Minister was faced with a straightforward choice. Was she prepared to tolerate a means test so that adequate money could be given to the people who needed it so desperately, or would she take the easy course and pay increases to all families regardless of need? I am sorry to say that she, or the Government, decided upon the latter course, because we all know that the increase of 7s. is so small that it will make no difference to the wealthier families, while the poorer families will be denied the financial assistance which we ought to to be providing.
I make this clear to my colleagues—and I am glad that few of them are here, because I shall not be popular in expressing this view. I shall not rely on all this academic nonsense of selectivity. That conception means no more to a destitute child than redeployment means to a man who has to tell his wife that he has lost his job. I am prepared, and indeed happy, to admit that the issue here is whether we have a means test or whether we do not. This was one occasion, I suggest, on which we had no choice if we were to tackle our problems in a sane and sensible manner. I know what the Labour Party feel about the means test, and with every justification. I was brought up in a coal mining family, and it is hardly surprising that my people suffered the ignominy of a Tory means test for many years. It was impressed upon me from a very early age that the means test and those who inflicted it upon us were evil. I soon learned that the object of the means test as we then knew it, or as my people then knew it, was to keep away from those who needed help the maximum possible assistance, to allow them to linger on but nothing more.
But times have changed. I am prepared to argue for a means test on family allowances because I believe it to be the only way in which we can get adequate assistance to the people who need it. We do not wish to deny help, as happened in the 1920s and 1930s. We on this side of the House wish to provide it. With the money which the Bill makes available, we could have gone a long way to ending the sad plight of hundreds of thousands of children.
There is a danger that anyone on this side of the House who argues in this way will be lumped with the backwoodsmen of the Conservative Party, and that would be the ultimate indignity, but it is a chance which I have to take. Their case was argued very fluently and very fully by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) at the weekend. In case any hon. Member opposite does not understand it, we have an unwritten law in the Parliamentary Labour Party that we do not attack each other, and I do not propose to attack him, other than to say that I enjoy my newspapers every Sunday because it is always interesting to read my hon. Friend's script, which I suspect comes from the Tory Central Office. We know what he means and what he is after in relation to the Health Service, and I want no part of that.
But family allowances are different. The whole basis of social security in relation to retired people is that we ask them some questions and allocate help according to the answers. I believe that we could have extended that system to include family allowances, but principle prevented us from doing so. What we have done, instead, is to introduce an increase which is welcome enough but which is totally divorced from the problems facing the country.
This weekend in my constituency I had to deal with a man whose take-home pay in the prosperous West Midlands was £12 a week. His council house rent is nearly £4 a week. He cannot get a rent rebate because my Tory council in this respect are so mean that they would take a dead fly off a blind spider. He is left with the problem of keeping himself, his wife and two children on £8 a week.
I sometimes feel that we in the House do not understand what sort of prob-

lems confront a man in that situation. Why do we always assume that the financial burden begins with the second child? I know of many families with one or two children where assistance is just as badly needed—in some cases more badly needed—than in families of four or five children, and I hope that the day will come when we shall begin to pay the allowance on the first child.
I do not want to be abusive either of my own Front Bench or of the Opposition—that is the last thing that I have in mind—but I suggest that the attitude of the Tories today has been both interesting and predictable. They found their conscience. After thirteen years in which they did practically nothing in this respect, they have suddenly blossomed forth as the saviours of the poor. In my 18 months' membership of this House, I have never before heard such barefaced hypocrisy.
The Conservatives failed to face up to this problem because they know that increasing family allowances is electorally unpopular, that a great many people are violently opposed—and we have just heard of one from the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor). It has caused me more trouble—and I am glad that it has—than any other issue apart from the increase in our own salaries. The amount of ignorance, prejudice and misunderstanding over the question of family allowances is alarming, and, of course, the fire is fanned by the worthy women in Tory associations all over the country who fill the correspondence columns of newspapers. To listen to them one would think that the Bill is aimed at the creation of a feckless, idle society in which the working classes would behave like over-sexed rabbits and the State would be forced to keep the children that they could not afford. The theory apparently is that an extra 7s. a week will enable and, indeed, encourage parents to try to keep a child and make a profit. I wish someone would explain the principle involved in that theory to my wife.
The hon. Member for Hertford talked of another principle—"to each according to his need". We thought of it a long time ago, but we nevertheless welcome his conversion. I am glad to welcome him. He will be sitting on this side of the House soon. But it is a little late in the day for this conversion, and there are


those who, and I suspect that he is one of them, seize upon this principle of to each according to his need to argue that one cannot establish the need without asking a few simple questions. It may well be that he has a point there.

Captain Walter Elliot: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is nevertheless not the principle of the Bill? I hope that he still holds to what he said earlier—that he is really with this side of the House in his thinking and not with that side.

Mr. Price: I am prepared to admit that tonight I am on that side of the House, if such an admission will ease the hon. and gallant Gentleman's mind. I shall come to the point he has mentioned. I have never regarded the principle as justification for a means test. My interpretation of it is that society has a duty to pay a man a wage which will enable him to live in prosperity and without the indignity of seeking additional aid from any source. But we have to face facts.
There are hundreds of thousands of people in the country who are not getting an adequate wage and, whatever Government we have, it will be many years before we arrive at that situation. My right hon. Friend said that to have a means test on family allowances would be virtually to accept low wages. I agree that it would. But we have no alternative but to accept the fact of low wages, and there is no sign that the Government are going to move on the issue. Low wages will be with us for years and when my right hon. Friend convinces the Cabinet of the need for a guaranteed minimum income then her argument will hold good. At the moment it does not.
I am arguing, therefore, that we have to adapt principles to meet the circumstances of the day. It gives me no joy to argue the case for a means test for family allowances or anything else but, at the present, if we are to solve the problem, I see no alternative. In my view, family allowances based upon income would be acceptable to the vast majority of taxpayers and would be the salvation of many of our poor families. If there is a division tonight—and it will be interesting to see what the Opposition do—I ,shall follow my right hon. Friend into the Lobby with relish. I shall do

so because, while I think she is wrong, I hold the view that she is wrong for the best possible reason.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I judge the Bill by how far the measures contained in it overcome child poverty and how they equate with the Government's promises at the last two elections. It does not overcome child poverty and not even its most ardent supporters would claim that it does. After all, even when these allowances have been paid, only one half of the poorest families in the country will have been brought up to the basic supplementary benefit level, and while I do not presume to say that poverty can only be measured according to that level, it is a convenient guide for the time being until we have something better.
But the Government's proposals on this matter could not even save them from the resignation of the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), let alone save a very large number of kids from a very hard winter. How far does the Bill measure up to the Government's promises? The Secretary of State for Education and Science, when he held responsibility for home social policy, said at Lincoln in July:
By the end of the year we shall have dealt with family poverty.
I took that as a firm commitment, which I welcomed. I believed that, coming from a man in his position, it was a commitment that the Government would honour. But in fact, as I have shown and as various others have shown before me, the Bill cannot be said to meet that commitment.
Ever since I entered this House I have heard the Government use two excuses for failing to get on with solving the poverty problem. The first was that they were engaged in a survey of family circumstances. Now we have that survey, so it can no longer be an excuse. We know better than ever before where poverty exists and therefore should know exactly how to deal with it. The second excuse has been that they are involved in a comprehensive, purposive review of the social services and therefore cannot make pronouncements on this or that issue before the complete report.
Various piecemeal measures have been brought in over the last three years which have been alleged to be part of the review of the social services, but I still believe, looking at the totality of the measures, that the review of the social services has been the great non-event of the Government's social policy.

Mrs. Hart: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate how many steps have already been taken—indeed, legislation introduced—as a result of the review, which is a continuing process?

Mr. Pardoe: Yes. The right hon. Lady will recall that, shortly before she interrupted, I paid some tribute to these piecemeal measures. The hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) has already said that these do not add up to any overall strategy and it is the lack of any comprehensive principle of reform of the welfare state or social policy that I am deprecating.
What is required? I do not think that we can deal with poverty merely through family allowances. We cannot separate social policy from taxation policy but that is what the Government have done in failing to tell us how they propose to pay for this Bill. I hope that they will pay for it in the way that the hon. Member for Hertford suspects and is not too happy about. The Labour Party's 1966 manifesto promised to
seek ways of integrating more fully the two quite different social payments—tax allowances and cash benefits.
Yet there is still far too great a separation between the two.

Lord Balniel: The representative of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), is advocating that the cost of this Bill should be met by the abolition or reduction of the tax allowances. I am sure that he will agree that this represents an increase in direct personal taxation. Does he not feel that what is necessary in our economy is not an increase, but a decrease in direct personal taxation?

Mr. Pardoe: I entirely support that view. I believe that there is a whole mass of things in our policies which move in that way. But we can reduce direct personal taxation in other ways than in relation to family allowances.
It has for several years been my party's policy to advocate child endowment scheme; to propose that we should reallocate the money allocated in various forms by the State for the upbringing of families. We want to reallocate it to ensure that more goes to those really needing it, and rather less to those who, like the noble Lord and myself, perhaps do not need it quite so much for our children. I want to see a much larger flat-rate payment across the board, and I want it to be financed very largely from the tax allowances.
The right hon. Lady objected that it was wrong to ask the better-off families to pay to outlaw the poverty of the poorer families—

Mrs. Hart: I did not.

Mr. Pardoe: I am sorry, but I fully understood the Minister to say that. If that was not the implication, I immediately withdraw what I said. We want the reallocation of this money. The State says that children cost money to bring up and enshrines that principle in its taxation policies.
In 1967–68, tax allowances will cost the Exchequer £630 million, and family allowances will cost £160 million. We are therefore allocating a total of £790 million to the upbringing of families. Tax allowances have increased much faster than family allowances, and that answers the noble Lord's objection that it would be wrong—he agrees with the right hon. Lady here—because there is some innate distinction between money handed across the post office counter and money not handed away in taxation. I am unable to appreciate this distinction in quite the clear terms the noble Lord propounds. In the last ten years, tax allowances have risen from £230 million to £630 million while family allowances have risen from £128 million to £160 million. In ten years, therefore, we have had an increase in tax allowances of £400 million and an increase in family allowances, up to the present time, of only some £32 million.
I want a flat-rate State payment. I do not agree with the idea—and here I am with the Minister—that we should make this selective payment in the way proposed by certain hon. Members on this side. We want substantial payments for all


children, including the first, and we have already suggested that an appropriate average payment would be about £2. I should like to see a lower payment for younger children and a higher payment for older children who remain in full-time education. It is not necessary to pay for this entirely by abolishing tax allowances. It would be possible to make some reduction in them, and I accept that it might be unfair to charge the whole of the cost to better-off families. I have no doubt that it would be possible to find some of the money from other sources, but the major part must come from reallocating the £790 million that we now spend—

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman will see when he reads my speech tomorrow that the distinction I made was between the better-off with children and the better-off without children. I said that I did not see why the whole burden should necessarily fall on the better-off with children. That is where the hon. Member has not quite taken what I said.

Mr. Pardoe: I accept that. There should however be some form of graduated allowances in the final stage. What I do not want is for this to be done by the Stale, and here I part company very considerably with the noble Lord and his friends.
There is a great difference between our proposals for a partnership between State provision and private occupational provision. There is a great difference between our proposals and those for some sort of State monopoly, which, if I am right, the Conservative Party proposes. In his evidence to the Royal Commission on Population, Sir Roy Harrod suggested that there should be a graduated family allowance. At that time, he wanted it done through the Inland Revenue but that might be rather difficult in the immediate future.
I want this provision to be done through occupational family endowment schemes. I accept the right hon. Lady's warning about the difficulty of a minimum wage policy being a subsidy for lower wage payers—this could be a very real difficulty—but I do not want the minimum wage policy to be brought about by more Government money. It should be brought about by legislation enforcing employers to do the right thing.
If it is right, as the noble Lord said, that it should be and already is, enshrined in taxation policy that the commitments of a married man with children are greater than those of a single man or of a married man without children, there is no reason why the same principle should not be enshrined in our wages policy, too. We could and should legislate to enforce occupational schemes of this sort.
We cannot, however, attack poverty merely in this way. The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) said that he would like to see a negative Income Tax, but that that could not yet be introduced because of lack of sufficiently sophisticated computerisation. I do not believe it. In certain directions we could introduce a form of negative taxation, of social payments related to Income Tax forms, without all this complicated computerisation.
I have already suggested to the Secretary of State for Education and Science that this should be done in relation to the cost of school meals. For instance, it would be perfectly simple to issue vouchers for school meals of such value that when taxed at the standard rate there would accrue to the Exchequer the actual cost of school meals. For instance, if we had a voucher valued at 4s. the yield to the Exchequer at the standard rate of taxation would be 1s. 8d. A 5s. voucher would yield 2s. 1d. The vouchers would be issued to the children at the beginning of the term. Children would each take a voucher to school each day. If a child was ill, the parents would have a voucher over. This would be returned at the end of the year with the Income Tax form, and the nominal value would be added to total earnings on which Income Tax was assessed. This is a perfectly simple method. It does not require a great deal of administration or vast numbers of gigantic computers. It is only one specific way in which we could relate social payments of this sort to Income Tax.
The reason why I am against selectivity and means tests in the way in which so many people talk about them is that I am against the proliferation of means tests with masses of officials coming to one's door to ask whether one earns this or that. Instead, we could institute a scheme of negative Income Tax, with one means test—which we now accept with Income Tax—and we do not need to wait


for a great bank of computers. We could make a movement towards this already in certain directions.
I have great expectations of the Government in dealing with poverty. I apply double standards in this matter. I expect a Labour Government to do a great deal better than their Conservative opponents in dealing with poverty. It is, therefore, useless for any right hon. or hon. Member opposite to say to me, "They did not do it in 13 years. We have done rather better." Of course, the Government have done better. They jolly well should have done better, and I look to them to do a great deal better in the future.
I fail, however, to see an overall strategy. We have had piecemeal proposals. There has been no attempt to set out the principles on which the Government's attitude to the Welfare State is based. We need a major attack on poverty and social injustice, housing, education.—I welcome the proposals of the Plowden Report and, as far as they go, the Government's plans to back them and on family endowments.
The Government need to leave a solution to the problem of poverty behind them when they go. It may be later than they think. They may not have much time to deal with this problem. I would not expect that if the Government do not deal with it, the Conservatives, if they succeed them, ever will.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The speech of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was one of the most tempting speeches to follow which I have heard for a long time. It was a mass of contradictions. The hon. Member suggested that some of us need to read our speeches. He will certainly need to read his to understand the contradictions which he has made.
I like to think that I have an open mind in examining any proposition, but if the hon. Member puts forward the idea of a parent having something like 200 vouchers a year to play around with and at the end of the year, when some of them have not been used, submitting a return to the Income Tax authorities, he does not know what he is talking about. Many people cannot keep trace

even of one form P60 on which they claim their earnings-related benefit. That, however, is typical of woolly Liberal thinking; but I do not want to pursue that.
I am delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister in making her first contribution as Minister of Social Security. Those of us who have followed social service matters have enjoyed the exchange between the two feminists who formerly occupied positions opposite each other. I am tempted to suggest that on today's performance my right hon. Friend was way ahead of her opposite number, for a variety of reasons.
We are all a bit confused or have difficulty in being dogmatic in the argument about selectivity versus universality. I do not think that anybody can afford to be dogmatic on one side or other of the argument. I get the feeling, however, that behind the argument from hon. Members opposite, what they are genuinely concerned about is relieving the burden of individual taxation. The Liberals agree with that, but no one has suggested how we are to deal with the situation which confronts us if we want urgent action on family poverty. All the other arguments become rather academic from the long-term standpoint unless we get clear indications from hon. Members opposite about how they would find the money which, they suggest, is required to deal with the urgent problem which they have discovered since we took office.
My right hon. Friend spoke about the Beveridge Report. There is still a disturbing attitude—I am not being critical; this is something which we must all face—in the sense that one of the arguments for the introduction of family allowances has been that we should always maintain a substantial gap between the wage earner and a person in receipt of benefit and that poverty was an incentive to get back to work—in other words, the kind of poor law or charitable approach which still survives even in the middle of the twentieth century.
I plead with my right hon. Friend that we should have a bit of courage and abolish the wage stop altogether. I know that this is a difficult matter, but I would like to give my reasons for saying that. In Scotland, as my right


hon. Friend will know—whether it is a blessing, I am not willing to say—we certainly have the smallest percentage of two-children families and the largest percentage of families with three, four, five, six or more children. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) said something about the sexual appetite of the working class. I am not commenting on that. It might have something to do with the colder climate—I am not sure. There are a lot of things to which we do not know the answers. Certainly, it is a problem.

Mr. William Price: I was suggesting that there were some good ladies in the Conservative associations who have the idea that increased family allowances would encourage the working class to act like over-sexed rabbits. I am told, however, that the increase in electricity charges is likely to have the same effect.

Mr. Brown: There are variations in the application of the wage stop which are well known to hon. Members. I mention the size of families because the Bill is, I imagine, of relatively greater help to the parents and people of Scotland because of the figures which I have mentioned. But it is not simply a matter of the size of families and the problem of disabled people. It seems to me to expose the need for regional economic policies which would do more to equalise the opportunity for work and, therefore, reduce the need for wage-stop cases.
At last, I am a little hopeful that this has got through to Government circles. It is not simply an argument on grounds of economic policy, although that might be the priority. So many of the social problems with which we are confronted, of which the wage stop is only one, arise from the inequality of opportunity and earning capacity between one area and other.
I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the new Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) is present. I thought that when we were discussing this first piece of legislation arising from the Gracious Speech, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) might have been in her place. Certainly, we are dealing with a matter which affects parents and children in a working-class constituency like Hamilton.

Mr. Pardoe: Is not the hon. Member aware that Scotland is much further from London and that that is one of the reasons for the result at Hamilton and one of the reasons why it has taken the hon. Lady longer to get here?

Mr. Brown: I believe that that was meant as a serious interjection. That is the tragedy of it.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: It should not take her a fortnight to get here.

Mr. Brown: I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Hamilton is not present and did not take this opportunity of indicating how the Scottish National Party, for example, view this welcome Measure.
Most of us admire my right hon. Friend's energy and ability. There is a danger that the academics will win the somewhat academic argument that is now being pursued. It would do many academics good to go into a Glasgow office of the Ministry of Social Security on a Friday and see exactly what happens when supplementary benefits are being paid. I am concerned about the amount of work which is entailed. There have been three attempts today to explain what it will mean to a husband and wife with two children next April. Somebody is bound to be right. We do not know who is right, because the complications brought about by the fact that the fourth and subsequent children will get an extra increase and by the fact that there will be no change in the supplementary benefit rates in April increase in geometrical progression. All this will impose an enormous burden on the staff in local offices.
Unless a better understanding can be brought about of the attitudes which are breeding in these offices, the best-laid schemes will not operate. There is a hardened attitude on the part of many staff, because they do not have enough time to do the social work which is a necessary concomitant of paying these benefits. I ask my right hon. Friend to carry out an early examination or to make a visit to some of the offices where unemployment is greatest.
The Government deserve credit for many things. It is a healthy sign that we are even discussing the need for a minimum wage, the need for an incomes


policy which will do something to lift people out of the poverty level, and that we are trying to find ways of implementing our social policies. I am tired of listening to the niggling contributions of hon. Members opposite. In thirteen years the Conservatives did not introduce even the smallest of the reforms which they now suggest. The battle for increased standards in society will have to be continued on this side of the House. We do not expect any help from the Conservatives.
The Government are showing courage. Family allowance is an unpopular benefit. Old age pensioners always resent any money being spent on family allowances, not just any increase. The typical attitude amongst the old is, "I never got money such as this to bring up my bairns". I am not saying that I agree with the attitude, but it is an understandable attitude on the part of old age pensioners that society owes them more than they are getting, even though we have done more for them than any other Government have.
We should be cautious about the argument concerning the incentives which the executive class needs if it is to produce the goods. Recently an executive complained to me that he was paying Income Tax running into four figures. He complained also that we were not encouraging private health service schemes. If the Tory Party encourages people who are presumably earning £10,000 and more, otherwise they would not be paying so much tax, to take this attitude, whilst we have this great number of families living in poverty, it has got its priorities wholly out of perspective.
We are now faced with a challenge. I believe in the need to distribute the available wealth. We hear many esoteric arguments about the rate of growth at present, what is possible by way of growth for the future, and what necessary social improvements can be paid for out of increased growth. Even if we do not succeed in greatly increasing growth, I would still argue that we should still impose individual tax burdens on the wealthier members of the community. Presumably, we would be included in this class. Are hon. Members opposite willing to support that concept, in the absence of growth or in the absence of sufficient growth?
I come, finally, to the need for some disciplines. Of course there are malingerers. A malingerer is someone who makes no useful contribution to the community by the sweat of his brow or by his brains. Hon. Members opposite should know more about such persons than I do. I represent a typical working class constituency. I admit that there are malingerers and "fly" people. There are some who are not necessarily bad but who are inadequate. There are others who are just bad. We should seek to correct this regrettable failing in society with a little understanding. We must not always hold back the decent person, he who genuinely appreciates what we are doing for him, merely because a small section of the community will take advantage of everything that is going. Such persons are not confined to those in receipt of supplementary benefits.
I would like to see a coming together of the Departments that pay the money and the Departments that do the social work. I recognise that in the Bill the Government are making some contribution, however small some may allege that it is, and however disappointing it may be to some of us, to solving the terrible problems facing poor families.

6.19 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: This is a very curious place in many ways. Last night I stayed here till a late hour trying to speak. Today I have had other engagements and had not much hope of speaking, because I have not been present for the whole debate so far. I apologise to those hon. Members whose speeches I have not heard.
I want to pay a very sincere tribute to the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). I have a tremendous respect for her integrity, for her principles, and for the work she has done, not only in the time that she was Minister, but in past years. The right hon. Lady and I have had the pleasure of knowing each other for a considerable time. I am very sorry to see her sitting on the back benches, but I know that she will do good work from there.
I welcome the new Minister to her post. We have had a couple of battles


together. I do not necessarily mean battles against each other. In one battle we defeated a Bill. I hope that she is as successful as her predecessor was.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) made many practical points in his speech. I am glad to learn that families in Scotland are so small. I could produce families—or perhaps I should say that I could tell the hon. Member of families consisting of 15 and 18 people. I am probably the first Member to speak in this debate who will not benefit from this Bill, and perhaps that corrects my slip just now. I agree that one of the greatest difficulties are the low wages, and Government Departments are in many cases to blame.
I think the subject of malingerers has been greatly exaggerated. I hold very large "surgeries" in my constituency and the difficulty very often is to find a job for people who come to see me. Last week one person who came to see me was an epileptic and another one was lame. I hope that we shall take these factors ino consideration when we are thinking of this Bill.
I am not willing to see the distribution of wealth by taxation as a means of levelling up the standard of living. I want to see the standard of living levelled up all round and not just one section. This is not impossible. We talk of a minimum wage, which we all hope will eventually come, but I do not want this to be achieved by means of taxation to the detriment of people who have worked very hard indeed to get their present positions and who are trying to raise standards for their own children.
I should like to ask a question about the wage stop. This is permissive for those who are sick. I do not know how often it is likely to be used, and I should like to be told. I understand that the individual concerned will have to appeal. When a person is sick, I think he should have the benefits to which he is entitled and that there should be no wage stop and no need to appeal.
I was interested to read in the Evening Standard that six out of 10 voters would not object to a means test. We have to declare what we mean by a "means test". Personally, I am not in favour of a means test as it applied in the days when I was on the London County

Council. Neither am I happy about the word "selectivity". The individual family should get what it needs, and I think this can be brought about by taxation methods.
I presume that this Bill is only what I would call a tiding-over process and that we are waiting for a longer-term policy. As such, I welcome the Bill as being a step forward. However, I hope that we shall find some method of introducing an individual minimum wage standard, because it is much better for people to have their own money rather than to rely on supplementary benefits.
My views about taxation coincide with an article that I read in New Society by a man who has studied this subject very carefully, Mr. C. N. Aydon, a lecturer at Dundee College of Technology. He objects to the abolition of Income Tax child allowances on the following grounds:
The entire cost of substantially increased allowances for poorer families would be financed, at a time of high taxation, entirely by sacrifices of better-off families with children.
This brings me back to my original point. Many people paying these taxes work extremely hard to get to their present positions. The author of that article suggested that we should choose family tax allowances or child allowances, but not both, for although the better-off would lose their tax family allowances, they would retain the benefit of their full tax reliefs. Any rise in the income per head would cause families to contract out of family allowances, so reducing the net expenditure on this service.
A further plan that Mr. Aydon has submitted is the following:
A supplementary family allowance of 10s. a week could be made available to every child at present qualifying for family allowances, on condition that they produced a certificate from the Inland Revenue that they will not claim child allowance.
This is estimated to cost about £25 million, and it would help the large proportion of the poorest children.
The Bow Group worked out a scheme on these lines and said that cash family allowances should be treated as a credit against the tax liability of all P.A.Y.E. and Schedule D Income Tax payers. There was a very interesting article in the


Financial Times of 7th January this year by Samuel Brittan, pointing out that a man with three children who has a tax bill of £47 per annum and is entitled to collect the same amount in family allowances is, on balance, neither worse nor better off before his encounter with the Inland Revenue, but he has to pay and collect in two separate operations, and the marginal rate of Income Tax is made higher than it need be because of these transactions.
I hope the Minister will consider this point. Cash family allowances, so far as they have had to be paid out after being offset against net tax liability along the lines that I have just mentioned, could be paid by the employers as a supplement to wages. On many occasions we have talked about going into the Common Market, and all family allowances in the Common Market countries are paid by the employers. This must be considered, as Common Market countries have much higher child allowances than we have, France having the highest. Therefore, we would have to change our system of collecting this money for the payment of family allowances. This may be one of the matters that the Minister is considering at the moment, which may be one reason why we have not been told how the Bill is to be financed. But we still do not touch 80,000 of the poorest families who are below the poverty line, and we must concentrate on this.
The right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) said on 24th July, 1967, that a means test would have a great effect on incentives. He said that there is a disincentive if things are so arranged that people who are not working actually get more than if they are at work. But we must ensure that people who do not work are not hit because they cannot get work. There are a good many people who cannot get work at the moment. I agree that we should work for the minimum wage which would provide a much better basis for giving these supplementary pensions.
In the previous debate I said that until we get a minimum wage there should be a housekeeping allowance. By this I mean that a wife should be able to apply when her husband suffered a wage stop. Without the wage stop he might have received £3 or £4 more. This

allowance should be paid directly to the wife. If we cannot get the minimum wage, I suggest that we might consider this suggestion as a means of augmenting the lower income groups.
One or two speakers in this debate have mentioned the question of material assets, and I should like to see the Greater County Council Care Committee's scheme extended to the schools in provincial towns. We are thinking here of the large families. The Royston Lambert Report emphasised that there was still need for free school milk and for a good school dinner. From my own knowledge, I can tell the House that quite a number of children still go to school without breakfast. The school milk and a meal is a great advantage. Over 280,000 children had free meals in 1964.
I did not altogether agree with what I understood to be the suggestion for a coupon system made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). I have another proposal in this connection which I am certain would be much better. It is important to make no distinction between the children who can pay and those who cannot. I suggest that mothers who can pay could buy from the headmaster or headmistress a book of coupons for meals, while the ones who could not pay would have it free. Then the children could come along to school dinner with their identical coupons,handing them in instead of money, so that no one would ever know whether they paid or not. I hope that some such arrangement will be considered. It is essential that our wonderful school meals scheme is maintained.
I have a question on Clause 2, which deals with the meaning of "child". Clause 2(1,b) opens with the words:
… for the purpose of determining whether a person is to be treated as a child as undergoing full-time instruction in a school …
I assume that, when the school-leaving age is raised, the older school children will remain eligible, but what exactly is covered by the word "school"? Some children go to a technical school, for example. In other words, when does a child stop being a child and become a student? Perhaps the Minister will give a definition so that we may know who is eligible and who is not.
As I said at the outset, I regard the Bill as a step in the right direction, and I hope that we shall have further schemes


in the future to eliminate the other sectors of poverty to which so many hon. Members have referred.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on her fine performance at the Box this afternoon. If she continues as she did today, she will soon be held in the same high esteem on this side of the House as the previous Minister has been.
I welcome the concern which has been shown by all hon. Members in the problem of poverty, a concern shared by front benchers and back benchers on both sides. If concern and words were a solution to the problem, it would have been solved long ago. If all the words spoken on the subject since I was elected last March had been matched by action, the problem would have been solved by now. But we need more than words. There must be the will to act and action taken. The problem of poverty will not be solved until the nation as a whole accepts its full responsibility in the matter. It is a national responsibility, and the problem can be solved only in that way.
As a school teacher for about 17 years, I saw much evidence of poverty and child poverty, not only in Wales where I have been for the past 13 years but here also in London itself. The evil consequences of child poverty for physical, educational and social development are manifest. It is a blot on the social conscience of the nation that poverty in any form, and particularly child poverty, can exist in 1967.
The Bill will go some way towards ameliorating the problems of poverty, but it will not solve them. However, on the principle that half a loaf is better than none, I shall support it tonight. I support the Bill for all the good that it does, while recognising that there are sins of omission which must be corrected, and corrected soon.
The continuance of the wage-stop as we know it is one outstanding deficiency. In her speech this afternoon, my right hon. Friend said that the principle behind the wage-stop was to prevent anyone being better off out of work than when in work. All this does is to emphasise the extremely low wage levels which persist in large areas of our country. It is

a matter of shame for the whole population. My right hon. Friend said, further, that it was necessary to deal with the work-shy. If that was all there was to it, it might be reasonable, but it does not really deal with the work-shy. It is an academic argument to refer to the work-shy. There might be point in it if work were available, but in areas such as my constituency, where there is no work or very little opportunity for work, to talk of the wage-stop as dealing with the work-shy is academic.
We see the harsh effects of the wage-stop in areas of high unemployment. I do not say that they are harsh because those who administer the scheme are harsh. In my experience, I have found the staff of the Ministry of Social Security to be kind, warm-hearted people who do their level best within the regulations to see that those in need have assistance. These are human problems. They are not problems of statistics. It is people, not percentages, who are affected by the wage-stop. The figures are more than just a political embarrassment. They represent human beings in need and suffering hardship.
To illustrate what I mean, here is an example. I have already referred it to the Ministry. In June this year, I had brought to me the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. M—obviously, I do not use his name—a man with a wife and three children, a girl of 10 and two boys of 13 and 14. Because of the wage-stop, that family was existing on £8 18s. a week. I know that the figures have been improved, but the effect of the wage-stop in his case was almost £5 a week. I urge the Minister to do something about it. I was very pleased to hear her say that we could expect certain conclusions in this connection very soon, and I beg her to hasten the day.
Here is another sin of omission. About a fortnight ago, when I was coming here from the Rhondda, I saw a newspaper headline,
No hardship for unemployed', says Minister.
It depends on one's point of view. For Ministers, perhaps, there may be no hardship in unemployment, but I can assure them that, if they were among the unemployed, they would appreciate that real hardship exists.
We are told in the Long Title that one of the objects of the Bill is to
make related adjustments of certain benefits.
In this connection, I draw attention to the regulation which lays down that, after drawing unemployment benefit for 312 days, a person loses entitlement to that benefit. Again, this might be reasonable in areas of low unemployment. In areas of high and long-lasting unemployment, on the other hand, that restriction has a severe impact.
On Monday this week, there was a massive demonstration in London of miners from coalfields throughout the country. I brought five or six miners from my constituency to meet my right hon. Friend and to talk about this problem. The restriction of unemployment benefit to 312 days is very serious in areas like mine, and theirs is the sort of human problem behind it.
One of those men, who shares the same name as mine, is 62 and has worked underground in a colliery for 47 years. He was declared redundant, which is only a nice way of saying that one is out of work and on the dole, about 12 months ago and has now exceeded his entitlement to unemployment benefit. It may be said that he can now claim from the Ministry of Social Security, but his wife happens to have a part-time job teaching in a youth club, which brings their combined income above the level of the supplementary benefit scheme. She enjoys doing the work, and is of some help to the youth service of our community. The family receives no financial benefit from the wife's working because after 47 years' work the husband is not entitled to any benefit in his own right, and for the first time in his life he is completely dependent on his wife's income.
The indignity this places on any man is something which I beg the Minister to examine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) has had much experience of these questions. He tells me that under Section 62 of the National Insurance Act, 1946, local tribunals were to be set up which could recommend the continuance of benefits at the standard rate in such cases. They would be paid as long as the men were available for work, and without any means test. In other words,

there was put on the Ministry of Labour the responsibility for finding work and on the man the onus of accepting work if it was available. As long as he was out of work through no fault of his own he would be entitled to draw unemployment benefit as of right.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will look at the wage-stop and the question of the 312 days' entitlement to unemployment benefit, because in areas which have endured unemployment for a very long time at a very high level we are suffering unduly from those two matters.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), who is no longer in his place, suggested that nothing original had been said in the debate. I hope that I shall do something to remove that idea from his mind, because I believe that the best answer to the admittedly highly complicated problem of family allowances would be to abolish them altogether. I am strengthened in his belief by the obvious determination of the Minister not to apply any form of means test to family allowances, but to introduce flat rates right across the board for rich and poor alike, as my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) said. In this connection I am sure that other hon. Members have had the same experience as I have had. When addressing meetings in my constituency I always make a point of asking if there is any woman in the audience who will stand up and honestly say that she has always spent her family allowance for the benefit of her children. I have never yet had an application for that distinction.
The Minister gave eight arguments why a means test is undesirable. She gave them very quickly and I regret that I could not hear them all and certainly cannot remember them all. But they were conclusive to her and therefore we can clearly expect that as long as she is in her present position—and I congratulate her on her accession to it—we shall not have any selectivity in family allowances.
The best way to deal with the problem, therefore, is to abolish them altogether. I do not of course suggest this without having something to propose in their


place. The purpose of all hon. Members, from the Minister downwards, is to take action that will ensure that poor families, especially those with large numbers of children. shall somehow be made better off than they are now. There is no dispute between the two sides of the House on that.
Several hon. Members have hinted at a process of "negative" Income Tax which is, I believe, in force in Denmark to an extent, and has been much mooted in this House and elsewhere. I draw the attention of the House to a cogently written article by Professor Dennis Lees, of University College, Swansea, in the Lloyds Bank Review for October. He not only sets out in detail the principles of negative Income Tax and gives very illuminating examples of how it might work, but also does something which I believe has never been done before—he makes an attempt to cost the system of negative income tax which he believes might well replace family allowances.
His main argument is as follows:
At present, anyone with an income in excess of income tax allowances and exemptions pays tax at some specified rate. To this would be added a system whereby anyone with allowances and exemptions in excess of income would receive benefit payments at some specified rate.
He goes, on to give examples, taking the proposed rate of negative Income Tax as 50 per cent. for the convenience of calculation. That is not far from the standard rate of Income Tax. A family with three children aged under 11 years, with an income of £400 a year, would draw allowances of £47 a year under the present system of family allowances. Under Professor Lees's scheme, with a 50 per cent. negative income tax, their Income Tax allowances would be £773, and there would then be an income deficiency of £373 and a benefit payment of £187 a year.
The benefit payments would diminish up to the "break-even point" at £881 a year, where the benefits paid to a family with three children under 11 would be the same as their taxes. Therefore, with an income up to £881, each family would have a bigger allowance than under the family allowance system. A family of two children with a basic income of £500 a year would receive £90 from the system, compared with £21 family allowances.

The most striking example is that of a family with six children. If their basic income was £500 a year they would receive £625 with family allowances and £820 under negative Income Tax. But the same sized family with a basic income of £1,000 a year would receive exactly the same under my proposed system as under the family allowance system.
Those examples can be worked out by anybody with a pencil and paper. The most interesting thing Professor Lees has done is to cost the system. He discovered at the back of the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year ended 31st March, 1966, four tables—from 85 to 88—which show the relationship between income and family size. I think that this is the first time such tables have appeared in the Report, and they make fascinating reading. Professor Lees has extracted from them that the cost would be of a negative Income Tax system on the lines I have suggested, provided family allowances were eliminated. He finds that as against the present cost of family allowances of £160 million a year—I think that is the correct figure—the negative Income Tax would cost at the most £118 million and at the least £75 million. These extremes are given because certain assumptions have had to be made in order to do the calculations.
It would, therefore, seem, at first sight anyway, that by abolishing family allowances, by introducing a system of negative Income Tax, we would not only concentrate money where it is most needed but would also save the taxpayer large sums. There would be no means test. There would be nothing invidious about this. It would be done through the P.A.Y.E. system. Every working man would tell his employer how many children he had, and the benefits would be paid by the employer under the P.A.Y.E. system, calculated through the system of coding, in exactly the same way as Income Tax rates are calculated.
There would seem to me to be nothing in this which would go against any of the right hon. Lady's objections to the means test. I think that if she would be kind enough to look through these proposals she would find that not one of her principles is wronged by this suggestion. It is not invidious. It is at the initiative of


the Government rather than the beneficiary, and I do not think it offends any one of her eight points. I would urge her to look at this to see if it would be a possibility, and if it would not, to tell the House why not.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) began his speech I thought there would be much with which I would disagree but by the end I found very much with which to agree, and if I do not follow him I hope it will appear that it is not because it was not most persuasive or one with which I would wish to quarrel.
It may be said that he did not, as some hon. and right hon. Members opposite have done, indulge in party polemics. There has been a happy atmosphere in a great deal of this debate, showing a very wide measure of agreement, but I could not help reflecting that there must be wild joy in heaven if anyone is thumbing a celestial HANSARD, and comparing what hon. Members opposite have said tonight with what they said when their party was in Government. May I hasten to exempt from that stricture, among others, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who is not in his place now, because the pronouncements of his party when it was last in Government are really a little too outdated for fair comparison.
I cannot help reflecting that it does not lie in the mouths of hon, and right hon. Members opposite to complain of the inadequacy of these provisions at a time when the Government are spending £144 on the social services for every £100 spent in the last year of Conservative Government.
At the same time I must confess to a feeling of deep disappointment about this Bill, and I feel sure that the Government, too, must feel deeply disappointed that they were not in the circumstances able to produce a more adequate Measure. This is a Measure which will indeed bring out of the range of poverty 51 per cent. of the children whom it was intended to help, leaving a quarter of a million still there.
Of course, I take the point of my right hon. Friend that the criterion of

poverty depends upon rates of supplementary benefit, so that whenever the Government increase those rates they make a statistical rod for their own back. I understand that, and I have sympathy with her in that she was confronted by quite a number of persuasive but contradictory arguments, like the very well presented argument by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), that it might have been better if the Government had redistributed the benefits to assist the larger families, and another persuasive argument by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) that perhaps she should have redistributed the help to the first child and help the smaller families. No doubt she will quickly realise in her new office that this is a case where one cannot win.
I wonder if she will permit me tonight very briefly, and I hope simply, to present again two arguments which in her speech she rejected. I appreciate the difficulties with which she is confronted. If she intended to assist even the major proportion of the children whom this Measure is intended to help, it would have been an impossible burden through any kind of benefits across the board. To take even 90 per cent. of those children out of poverty my right hon. Friend would have required an increase of £1 a week, and if my arithmetic is correct that would have entailed a cost of something like £320 million a year. I accept that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Even more."] And even more, and I accept that, too.
So that, clearly, one must reject any solution to the problem which rests upon an across the board increase, although I would not personally accept that family allowances are at present anything like exorbitant to this country. I think it was the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) who, said earlier that in this country at the moment we are spending, I think, 0·5 per cent. of our national income on family allowances as against 3 per cent. in most Common Market countries.
The alternative propounded, certainly by the noble Lord, is not the only alternative. It is here I join issue with him. I do not question for a moment his good faith. I am quite sure that he. is as anxious as any of us to see a


solution to this problem, but he could not have advanced that argument tonight if he had any conception of what a means test entails for those to whom it applies. My right hon. Friend produced a large number of arguments against the means test, and I would like only to reduce them to four.
First, those who have to apply think they label themselves poor and unsuccessful. Anyone who has spoken with someone who has applied for supplementary benefits or previously for National. Assistance will tell us that the experience of making that application for the first time was one of the most frightening experience of their lives.
The second reason is that it is the greatest of all possible disincentives. I still never cease to wonder that hon. Members opposite are terribly worried about disincentives when they apply to the higher income groups, but seem to be relatively untroubled about disincentives applied to the lower income groups.
The third reason—and this has been said several times in the debate already—is that the difficulty with a means test is that so often the benefits are never applied for at all. There may be a number of reasons for that. It may be a sense of shame, a sense of inadequacy. It may be they are badly advised, but the truth is that these people do not pick up a telephone and ring up their accountants, and they cannot talk about it to knowledgeable friends at a cocktail party.
At the beginning of any means test which is envisaged as a solution to the problem, we would begin it knowing that many of the families for whom the benefits are intended would simply not receive them. We know already from the report on the circumstances of families that only 70 per cent. of the families who are at the moment below the poverty level and whose breadwinners are in full-time employment are in receipt of school meals, and the figures for other benefits of a similar kind are of a very similar kind of percentage.
Finally, there is a very strong feeling, not entirely without justification, that a means test is not so much a method of redistributing benefits where needed as an excuse for reducing them.
I agree that if the Government were faced with a stark alternative of an increase across the board or a means test,

then they have chosen the lesser of two evils, but I do not accept that these are the only alternatives, and I return to a proposal which my right hon. Friend rejected, the proposal, if I may borrow the word of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, when speaking at Scarborough, to apply a means test to the upper limits of income rather than the lower, and adjusting family reliefs from Income Tax.
I appreciate that there are very real difficulties about this proposal, and one, obviously, is that it is a way of transferring money from the pocket of the husband to the pocket of the wife. In a male world, it is sometimes difficult to make that appear persuasive.
But I have a feeling that the two objections advanced by my right hon. Friend were based on misconceptions. I do not think that she has quite understood the proposal.
Her first objection was that it was wrong that only families with children should subsidise the increases which are going to families in the lower income bracket. As I understand it, no one is proposing that anyone should subsidise anything. What is proposed is that the family relief should be so adjusted that people paying the standard rate of Income Tax should break even. They would not be worse off, and so would not be subsidising; it means that they would not be better off. So the increases granted would be directed where they were most needed, and those who do not need them would be neither better nor worse off. That does not solve the problem of how to pay for them, but it does ensure that the burden is not higher than necessary.
Her second objection was the curious one, which we have heard before, that it would be wrong to anticipate what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have to say about it in his Budget speech next April. I hope we shall not be told again that there is something inherently wrong in anticipating, at a time when it is needed, something which must be reserved for the prerogative of the Chancellor in his Budget speech. There is no excuse for dividing our social and financial policies into watertight compartments in this way. Even if the Chancellor were minded to make some kind of Income Tax adjustments in his Budget,


in the eyes of the people to whom they applied they would bear no relationship to this Measure. It seems a pity that, for procedural reasons, we should be told that no one is in a position to take a clear decision about this, relating one Measure to another.
My second argument again goes fundamentally to the centre of the whole question, and it is about the wage stop.

Mrs. Hart: Before my hon. Friend leaves the first part of his speech, may I point out to him that, in what I said today in relation to what is commonly called the "give and take" scheme, I was not arguing against it, but saying that the scheme does not quite meet the problem. There are families without children, and the contribution which they might make would be considered as well. In other words, I was trying to assess both sides of the problem, without taking sides.

Mr. Archer: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. It means that she has not made up her mind and certainly is not precluding my suggestion from reconsideration in the future. The truth is that families without children would not be worse off than families with children under the "give and take" scheme.
I wish to make two brief points about the wage stop. I cannot resist making the comment that the views of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to have changed considerably since 29th June, 1964, when the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), answering on behalf of the Government, had this to say about the wage stop:
The principle is absolutely defensible that a man should not receive more when he is out of work than he can get by returning to work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 924.]
She repeated that, under pressure, on a number of occasions. Perhaps one should not complain that hon. Members opposite have come over to the side of the angels, but it might have been a little easier to debate tonight if they had arrived at that conclusion earlier.
I would not attempt to persuade the Minister that we should return to the Speenhamland fallacy of providing employers of' people in full-time employment

with labour on a subsidised basis. I have always argued that the long-term answer is a national minimum wage, but I take the point made by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford, who said that, in the meantime, we require some kind of short-term alleviation. Clearly, it is not something to which we can look forward within the next few months. In the meantime, there is very real hardship among people who are not affected by the reasons which led to the wage stop.
The principle of the wage-stop is that a person capable of being in employment should not be better off when he is out of work than he would be when in work. That does not apply to people who are too sick to work, to the disabled and to people in prison. At the moment, the wage-stop is all too frequently applied to those categories.
I want to take the matter a stage further. There are a large number of people who, through no fault of their own, are not in employment because no employment is available. I represent a constituency which is regarded by the Board of Trade as being in an area of full employment. Unhappily, that does not coincide with the facts at the moment. Could the Minister consider looking, first, at the three categories of people I have mentioned to whom the wage stop ought not to apply, and, secondly, consider whether it might be possible, as a temporary measure during this winter, to ensure that it does not apply to those who are redundant? There are many people in my constituency who otherwise will have occasion to look back on Christmas, 1967, as one of their unhappier times.
I am addressing these arguments not to a Minister who has made up her mind already or to one who is unsympathetic. They are addressed to a Minister who, like her predecessors, has come to her office desperately concerned with the fate of those about whom we are talking and anxious to look with an open mind at any new ideas which may be put forward. It is for that reason that I beg her, in the name of compassion, to look again at these two arguments.

7.7 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Member for Rowley Regis and


Tipton (Mr. Archer) said that hon. Members on this side of the House had complained about the inadequacy of the Bill's provisions. I do not think that my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) did that, and I do not, although we all want more, I suppose. We complain of the way in which the aid is directed, and the hon. Gentleman himself high-lighted that when he said that the Bill lifted above the poverty line only 51 per cent. of the children at present below it, leaving 49 per cent. below.
One of the most interesting points which emerge as time goes on and we debate Bills bringing benefit to our citizens is that more and more hon. Members opposite begin to take the view that aid should be directed to where it is needed. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) did, although he tried to disguise it to a certain extent. The hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton did, but he could not quite bring himself to admit it. I should very much like to hear the views of the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). One read that this was one of the reasons why she resigned, though whether it is true I do not know. In addition, it would be interesting to hear the views of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
The process is continuing on the opposite side, and it will continue. We know that our resources are limited. My noble Friend set out the arguments clearly in his speech, and I will not repeat them. 1 appreciate the difficulty about what is called the means test, but I do not see how poverty can be got rid of among a class of people unless it is identified.
The right hon. Lady gave seven points as to why she was against it. I cannot remember them exactly, but the general tenor of those points had a large emotional connotation, in my view. The words "means test" have an emotional connotation which in these modern days we should try to erase. Whether we do or not, the fact remains that this poses an acute dilemma for hon. Members opposite. As I say, more and more they are coming round to our view, but they cannot get over this emotional connotation, and that leads them to giving these benefits right across the board and not where they are needed.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) asked how we would pay for these benefits. I ask the right hon. Lady the same point. There must be some reason why we have not been told. We have always been told before. We know that some of the benefit will be lost by the increase in the charge for school meals. Will the means by which the money is to be raised further reduce this sum? It would be interesting to know.
I will come straight to my main point. I was interested when the right hon. Lady mentioned the studies of the T.U.C. on minimum wages and to what extent this could cure the problem. She did not press it very far, and I would be surprised if the Labour Party as a whole pressed it very far. On this side of the House there are some hon. Members who argue strongly against social benefits being included in wages and salaries of industry. I do not take that view, but I have the feeling that many hon. Members opposite do.
A minimum wage and relief of poverty are not the only factors. There are all kinds of fringe benefits taking care of social needs. I think that it might repay us to make a further close study of what goes on in negotiations in America on those matters. We here are often doing the job which both sides of industry—the trade unions and employers—should do. I will give one example of what I mean. We have recently passed legislation for redundancy payments. I think that was a benefit which should have been negotiated by industry itself without being put on to this House. That is something which can be extended over many fields. Industry so often spends its time arguing over the basic wages and salaries of its employees when it ought to be looking at these other things. It should take over a wide range of these problems. If it did we would gradually begin to get aid where it was needed.
For example, the coal industry is looking after many of these problems today, although I do not think it deals specifically with child allowances. This is the only industry which is doing it, as far as I know, but perhaps other smaller industries are also doing something along these lines.
As I said, I do not think that the Socialist Party or the right hon. Lady


pressed this very far. At the 1964 election I argued for social payments to be borne more by industry and less by the State, but my Socialist opponent argued against it. Conservative policy is to encourage occupational pension schemes in industry, whereas the party opposite are inclined to discourage such things. I believe that we should go much further. The firms have far greater knowledge of the individuals who work for them, and when they negotiate wage settlements they should cover a far wider range of benefits than wages only.
If these sorts of things were negotiated at local level—when I say "local level" I mean at industrial level, but it may cover the whole country—I think that we would get rid of these vast bureaucratic machines and get rid of the need for the individual, very reluctantly, to state his financial position, his dependants, and everything else which is so distasteful to him. I am sure that with the passage of time industry would find a solution to this problem which on both sides of the House, we know that this Bill does not to the tune of a quarter of a million children. We will never solve this problem by means of Bills from the centre, because, when all is said and done, this poverty line is relative. As the general standard increases, so the standard below the poverty line increases, and always has done. It will always be with us. I believe the time will come when both sides of industry, in negotiating their wage settlements, will take into account the needs of the family of the man concerned. When that is done many of our problems will be solved.

7.19 p.m.

Dr. David Owen: I rise to make a short contribution to the debate, and I speak with somewhat mixed feelings. I remember the discussion on child poverty during an Adjournment debate before Christmas, 1966, and the long Parliamentary struggle that many of us on this side have had to try to get action in the field of family allowances. We have had sympathetic noises from all the Ministers, and I am sure that in their individual capacities they have meant them; but it has been a long struggle and we are ending up with a compromise which does not tackle the complete problem.
It may be that there is a danger in not recognising a victory, or partial victory, but I remember with some horror that we very nearly got a solution which I would have found impossible to support. It seemed at one stage that we very nearly got round to having a means tested family allowance. This would have been a retrograde step, for reasons which I have already argued and do not intend to repeat. We have obtained a substantial increase. It is not enough, and it does not include the first child, but it gives to the family allowance system more than its original purchasing power. For this we must be grateful.
Those who have taken up this subject know how unpopular it is in some quarters, and, let us face it, it is often unpopular with members who support our political party. We know that it is not tremendous political pressure, but compassion and concern which are the main driving forces for the Government taking action.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) that we have the right to apply double standards to this Government, and I do so. I will not take from any Front Bench spokesman on this side of the House as justification for not doing anything the fact that it was not done by hon. Gentleman opposite. That is not why I am in this House, and it is not why they are the Government. They were elected because people believed that they would take revolutionary steps in this matter. That is what we are committed to, and what I intend to go on pressing for. I therefore do not apologise for remaining dissatisfied with some aspects of this issue, although I accept that this is in many ways a substantial advance.
One remains extremely unhappy, of course, about the fact that 250,000 children are going to remain below the supplementary benefit level. This is a serious problem to us all, but perhaps one can take some consolation from the fact that the very presence of this continued poverty will make us look at the problem globally, because this is essential. We cannot look at it just in terms of a benefit, of an allowance. This has come from all the speeches today, and none more so than from that of my right hon. Friend.
It seems clear to us that we have to embrace all aspects of the problem—education, housing, and particularly urban renewal, health, adult education of parents, and feeding habits, to try to overcome the still severe problem of malnutrition which should have left us decades ago. I think that we all accept this, but what we now want from the Government—and realism tells me that we will not see another increase in family allowances for some years—is a development of this coherent strategy. I have often advocated a poverty programme, and I do not take "No" for an answer because of some of the difficulties with which the American one had had to contend.
I think it is vitally necessary to have a Minister in the Cabinet with Departmental responsibility to answer for all those factors, and I have long argued—and the fact that it is also argued by bon. Gentlemen opposite does not put me off arguing it—that there is a real need to integrate the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Social Security, and the Children's Department of the Home Office. Until we get this degree of integration from the top, we cannot get it at the bottom as well.
The announcement which has given me more cause for gratitude than any other is the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that he is going to look into the whole system of the Health Service and its administrative structure to try to arrange a system whereby the tripartite system is done away with. If we do this, we can look again at integrating health and welfare. It is also necessary to consider the benefits which are paid not just as social security but as part of the taxation system. These two cannot go on being divorced, and if we do this we will have some chance of getting at the root cause of so much of the poverty in this country.
Many hon. Members have stressed the importance of doing something about the wholly inadequate wage structure. Coming as I do from the City of Plymouth, this is something about which I feel deeply. We have there an industry which, in effect, is employed by the Government. Industrial Government workers are paid a wholly inadequate wage. Some of their take home pay is less than they would normally expect to get from the Ministry

of Social Security. This is a major problem which the Government must face.
I know that the problem of introducing minimum wage legislation is very complex. Questions have been asked about it. It requires a take home pay of a satisfactory standard, but with it must go immense self-discipline from the unions if the minimum wage is not to be the signal for escalating wage claims, and as a basis for increasing the differential.
The trade union movement must accept this severe responsibility of restraining its members. I believe that it would do so willingly, because throughout the country there has been a remarkable degree of acceptance of the prices and incomes policy. The acceptance came from a belief that it would introduce some element of social justice into the wages system. It is this element which I think has so far to a great extent been lacking in the practical working of the prices and incomes policy, and I believe that in the life of this Parliament the Government must introduce a commitment to a minimum wage.
I say to my hon. Friends that we have to be realistic about this. It is no good expecting the Government to introduce a minimum wage of £15 a week. We know that this will cost £750 million a year, and to add that to unit costs when we are desperately striving to be competitive would be hopelessly unrealistic. We have to aim at pressing the Government to introduce a minimum wage of £12 10s., because this, with the other allowances, benefits, and family allowances, would mean that most people would be above the minimum thought necessary by the Ministry of Social Security.
I know that no one likes to talk about a minimum wage of £12 10s., but there are many people in this country who get less than that. Many people are on a wage of £10 or £11. Let us make the first hurdle a realistic one, and then have a commitment each year gradually to increase it to £15 a week which most of us would consider is the minimum for which we can settle.
The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) talked about putting the cost of a lot of this on to industry. This is very interesting, and I


am glad to hear it, but we must remember that this would increase industrial costs, and it is difficult to do this at the moment. I have argued that I would like to take away some commitment from the Insurance Fund. I would like to see short-term sickness payments taken away from the Fund and made the responsibility of employers. I think that we can ensure adequate safeguards for the disabled. This would be necessary because they might be the first to suffer.
Short-term sickness payments will increasingly be borne by the employer as more and more people are given the status of salaried workers, who receive it automatically. We ought to extend this to all industrial workers, and none more so than Government industrial workers. This affects men in the Devonport dockyard, and has been recommended by the Prices and Incomes Board.

Captain W. Elliot: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that if there was a so-called social element in the minimum wage unit costs would go up, but would he not agree that it would have to be recognised that the social benefit was included in the wage and people could not expect it from the State as well, and industry could perhaps make it up by a reduction in taxation?

Dr. Owen: I take that point. It involves a "give and take" system, and it is an interesting thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to see industry accepting some of the burdens. I would not dissent from that, although one has to be careful about the areas which are taken over. I have an open mind on this issue. In the sphere which I mentioned I would be prepared to see it happen now.
We realise that the country is facing a severe economic crisis—I sometimes wonder whether some of my hon. Friends realise just how severe it is—and it is therefore hard to argue for any more money, for I would argue very strongly against any measures for general reflation at the moment because this would bring a balance of payments crisis crashing down on us. There are, however, a few measures for which humanity cries out now.
The first of these is that we can no longer defend a system under which

people who are sick and disabled are affected by the wage-stop. The Minister should instruct her officers to lift the wage-stop where there is doubt about whether someone is affected by it because he is sick or disabled. Secondly, we must extend the constant attendance allowance to the civilian disabled. These two measures would not cost a lot of money, but they are badly needed before winter sets in.
A more general point which lies at the root of any problem affecting poverty is the difference between the two sides of the House in their attitude to public expenditure.
Hon. Members opposite cannot get away from this problem. As long as they go on talking about public expenditure as being dishonest and in some way disgraceful, and the first thing to be cut in time of economic difficulties, so we shall continue to have a lack of social investment. Just as industrial investment is vital to this country so is social investment. There is nothing wasteful about this. Every time we cut back a new hospital programme or the programme of education—particularly in deprived areas—we hold back the advance of the people's standards of living and of our economy. Social investment has an economic return. But hon. Members opposite always come up with their great belief that public expenditure must be cut back.

Lord Balniel: The hon. Member has made one of the most interesting speeches in the debate and I apologise for interrupting him, but I would point out that during the time of office of Tory Governments the expenditure on social services increased from £2,000 million to £4,500 million, which is an increase of over 50 per cent. in real terms. The hon. Member's accusation that we always cut back on social expenditure is a misapprehension of the position.

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I was not saying that the party opposite cuts back in a period of boom and growth. Some of their programmes in the period 1963–64 largely precipitated the balance of payments crisis. But when they have a period of deflation, as they had on three separate occasions, they cut back on vital social


programmes, including such things as hospitals and schools. The record is there to be seen.
This Government, to a great extent, have not done this, and that is a great tribute to them. But I now detect a danger that the public expenditure programme is likely to be cut back. Let us get some sanity into the argument about public expenditure. It increases every year, but so does personal consumption. I would not argue that we can increase public expenditure and cut back personal consumption so that it does not increase. That would be electoral disaster, apart from anything else, and no one would advocate that.
But there is a real argument between the relative growth rates in public expenditure and personal consumption. I argue that if a Socialist Government face a situation where it is necessary to deflate the economy they must preserve public expenditure at the expense of private consumption. The balance must be shifted in favour of public expenditure. For a relatively small cut in personal consumption we get a large increase in public expenditure. It is necessary to keep up our rate of investment in social expenditure, and if it means cutting back slightly on personal consumption that cannot be helped.
There is a great educational point here for Labour supporters. We must convince people that the quality of life and even their standard of life is improved by social investment. It is all very well for a person to say, "Hospital treatment, benefits, and redundancy payments do not affect me". They may affect him. He may suddenly become ill, and then he will want the best hospital. He may want a kidney dialysis unit. One of his children may be ill, and then he will want it to have the best treatment. Persons who have just got married and have no children might not care about family allowances, but they may have children later. There may be some resentment among older people, but many of them are grateful for the way in which we look after children, and do not resent the fact that families, and sometimes their own children, do not have as difficult a time in bringing up their children as was formerly the case.
This is the central argument, and until the party opposite tackles the question of

its underlying attitude to public expenditure and social expenditure, and can be honest on this issue, I will not take seriously any of its plans for the alleviation of poverty. The facts are that during a period of immense affluence in the postwar years the gap between the rich and the poor widened. In 1959 the indictment on the party opposite was expressed by Professor Titmuss in "The Irresponsible Society".
We must make sure that when the record of this Government is read we shall be able to say that they redressed the balance, kept faith with the people, increased social expenditure and tried to alleviate the hardships of the poor. Many steps have been taken, and the idea of geographical discrimination as envisaged in the Plowden Report must be expanded.
I now turn to the controversial point of private rents. I realise that this question affects only a small proportion of the people who are in poverty, but it is a major element in tipping some families into severe poverty. It is no good saying that they must have council houses. Many of them live in areas where they have to wait for five, six or seven years for a council house. The Labour Government introduced the new Rent Act. We have accepted the fact that private landlords will be with us for another decade, or perhaps two decades, so we must make the Rent Act work. We must accept the fact that the private landlord provides the roofs over the heads of some people who are extremely poor and who cannot get any other accommodation.
As we have introduced the rate rebate scheme and as rent rebates are introduced in more and more of our council houses, so in my opinion we must introduce a rent rebate scheme for private tenants. I know that such a proposal would be extremely difficult to implement, and I know all the arguments against it, but rent is a major element in the poverty of some people, especially in some of our city areas, and it must be tackled. It is no good saying that we should build more council houses; this Government have done more than any other in that respect. We shall have the problem of high private rents for the next 10 years.
We should bring in a scheme whereby a private rent should be paid only when it has been assessed as fair by a tribunal.


We must use the existing machinery. We cannot subsidise private tenants, and we do not wish to bolster them. A rent rebate would be contingent on the rent having been assessed by a rent tribunal. I should like to see us developing imaginative policies in this way.
I welcome the Bill. It will mean that many families will find this winter a much easier one than would otherwise have been the case, and when the full amount of the increase comes in the spring it will represent a significant advance in our attempt to alleviate the burden on poor people.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: This has been a stimulating debate. It started with one of the fastest speeches I have ever heard from a Minister of the Crown. The right hon. Lady addressed us in a very interesting and well thought-out speech. She has a computer-speed mind. I hope that she will forgive me if I ask her, on other occasions, to move at slightly nearer my speed of thinking when she is putting forward her arguments.
We had a remarkable maiden speech by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). It may interest the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) to know that my noble Friend was formerly a joint author of a publication called "The Responsible Society".
I wish that we had had two further speeches. I wish that we had heard from the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). Those two have played an important part in Government thinking on this question for some time, and we sincerely hope that they will join in our debates on these matters in the future.
It will not have escaped the attention of the right hon. Lady that practically none of the speeches gave her Bill an unqualified welcome. This was certainly true of speeches from her side and, perhaps not so surprisingly, from ours. It is perhaps anomalous that it will receive an unopposed Second Reading.
There was one major difference in the right hon. Lady's presentation from that to which we have been used from her

predecessor, for she always used to preface her introduction of new Measures with a reference to the general review of the social services. She used to give us to understand that a higher wisdom was operating in the Government and that all that was produced was part of a master plan. From time to time we were told that the veil would be lifted and a little more revealed. The present Minister has dropped this pretence and has admitted, by her failure even to refer to this great review, that it has run its course.
Of course, this was not the great, comprehensive review which we had been led to expect anyway. Instead, we have had a series of Ministers of ascending seniority in the Cabinet and increasing involvement in other matters. These gentlemen—I am delighted to see the right hon. Member for Sowerby in his place—appear to have had no staff to help them in this review and no authority. I have a shrewd suspicion that the right hon. Lady, like her predecessor, is too formidable a person to be moved around like a pawn in such a review.
We believe that the time is over-ripe for such a review. Social conditions have changed conspicuously since our present social structure was created—devised during the war and executed thereafter—and our social problems have changed immensely as the result of the increasing affluence which resulted from Conservative rule and the priority given by Conservative Government to social welfare—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: indicated dissent—

Mr. Worsley: It is no good the hon. Member looking disapproving, because these are the facts. Hon. Members opposite have executed a war dance which has become familiar. The hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) welcomed the fact that a previous speech had had no party political content. This was a danger sign, for he went on to say that we did nothing in thirteen years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford has already given the gross figure in response to the hon. Member for Sutton, but do the party opposite realise that the National Assistance levels, the very marker of poverty to which the right hon. Lady referred,


rose in real terms during these years by 50 per cent., at a time when taxation rates were reduced from 9s. 6d. to 7s. 9d. in the £? This was a remarkable achievement—a massive increase in social benefits and a real reduction in taxation, with, therefore, an increase in affluence and, correspondingly, in wealth.
The hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton, without attribution but certainly not off the record, quoted from the Prime Minister, maintaining that for every £100 spent in 1963–64 the present Government were spending £145. But if he had studied the last four years of Conservative Government he would have found a similar rise in expenditure.
He might perhaps have noticed The Times' remarks on this:
The growth in social investment has not, in spite of the figures that poured out of Mr. Wilson's speech, exceeded the rate established under the Conservatives.
So can we not conduct our debates on those matters in future without talk of what was not achieved under the Conservative Government? Of course we did not succeed in doing everything. There is much more to be done—that is what we are all here for—but for heaven's sake let us give credit where credit is due.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) remarked on the complexity of our present arrangements, and I agree with him. On grounds of complexity alone, there is a need for this general review, but it should not be carried out in a hole-and-corner way, in some cubbyhole off the corridors of power, as it is at the moment. At present, there is a mass of new thought on the social services, a great deal of which has been reflected in the debate. There is a tremendous growth of voluntary societies, indicating particular areas of particular need.
Not least of these—I am glad that it was referred to—is the Child Poverty Action Group. It is a fair assumption that the debate would not have taken this course were it not for that body's work. Of course, there are others. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) spoke about the disabled, and his work with the Disablement Income Group is well known. There has been an enormous increase in academic work in recent years over the social ser-

vices, and in the number of academic posts studying this matter. We have heard quotations from quite a few during the debate.
These people—voluntary bodies, academics and others—should have a chance to be heard in the general review. What is the point of reviewing the social services in a quiet way, hiding one's light under a bushel? Why do the Government not set up a Royal Commission, or a Select Committee? I like the latter idea, which is something that we could use rather more and before which everyone could bring his ideas to the Government and have them discussed so that we may go forward from there—

The First Secretary of State (Mr. Michael Stewart): It seems to have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that, when speaking in the debate on the Queen's Speech, I mentioned that I am having a conference for this very purpose. In view of his interest in these matters, I am a little surprised that he did not notice that.

Mr. Worsley: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. The next line of my notes says, "Conference on December 2nd no substitute for that." With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, there is a world of difference between a systematic review by a responsible body, with the evidence and conclusions published, and what will apparently be a one-day conference—one knows how effective one-day conferences are—after three years of Labour rule. This is not a substitute, but at least the right hon. Gentleman is moving timidly in the right direction.
The impression given by the debate and by the course of affairs during this extraordinary hole in the corner review—an impression which the Government have convincingly given to the people and to academics interested in the matter—is that they are not really interested in new ideas in this respect. They are content, as has been shown by their provisions for retirement and disability, to jog along in the same old way, and that is not good enough—

Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what Select Committee his Government or any Government of those thirteen years set up to discuss these problems?

Mr. Worsley: We are back on the same old rigmarole—

Mr. Loughlin: Ah.

Mr. Worsley: We are talking about 1967. I fully agree that after thirteen years of improvement under Conservative Government there was a need for such an inquiry, and I do not believe that I was alone among Conservative Members in pressing for it, but, instead of an inquiry of this sort, as we would have set up, all we have been given is this hole-in-the-corner business, and then the grand finale of the right hon. Gentleman's conference—

Mr. M. Stewart: It is not a finale.

Mr. Worsley: Well, I am glad about that.
I agree, too, with the reference of the hon. Member for Sutton to the necessity for a single, dynamic Ministry planning all our social affairs. This has been Conservative policy—I am sorry that this pains the hon. Member, but he must get used to it: we are sometimes right in these matters—for a long time. Surely it would be a better system if the right hon. Gentleman or the right hon. Lady—I draw no invidious distinctions: one of them at least—were in charge in the Cabinet of our whole social policy and nothing else. Surely this is absolutely essential for a coherent social policy, as things have changed. All this year we had heard through the usual leaks and briefings that the Government intended to do something about family poverty. As the months went by it became clearer and clearer that the Government did not know what they wanted to do. All the reports seemed to indicate that whatever happened would be new and original. I remember reading in The Times of 25th April an article by the right hon. Member for Sowerby in which he said:
Of the several possible ways of meeting the needs of the poorer families, an all-round increase in family allowances for everybody has been rightly ruled out. That would be both expensive and unpopular.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind since then.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I have not changed my mind at all. Had I not been absent from the debate for so long that it would have been almost an

impertinence to speak in it, I should have explained my disappointment that we have before the House at the present time only, from my point of view, half the plan. I was in favour, and the whole House knows it, of a scheme of interlocking fiscal allowances and social benefits. We have one half of that now. But in her opening speech my right hon. Friend said that it would be a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the other side of the matter in the context of Income Tax allowances generally at the time of his Budget speech. I have not changed my mind.

Mr. Worsley: If I have done nothing else, I have at least stimulated the right hon. Gentleman to contribute to the debate—and to contribute, I think, very usefully. I shall refer further to the ideas which he has expressed before I conclude.
I have quoted from the right hon. Gentleman's article, and I remind the House that when nothing had happened, long after that article had been written, and long after the reports had been coming out from Whitehall, my right hon. Friends in June put down a Motion of censure in this matter. We felt it to be intolerable that the Government were still taking so long to make up their minds. In that debate we had a lot of abuse—we expected that—but the children in the poorer families received nothing. It was not until the House was about to rise for the three-month Recess that the then Minister without Portfolio came to the House to prescribe a dose of the medicine as before—and then was promptly sent off to reorganise secondary education.
I want first to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify the exact cost of these proposals. I am aware that the Minister quoted a figure of £124 million. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify the relationship between that figure and the figure of £83 million given by the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke in the House on 24th July. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of this figure of £83 million as being net of tax and other adjustments. Precisely what are these other adjustments? I may be wrong, but I cannot believe that this enormous difference of £41 million is simply the tax payable on family allowances. What are the other adjustments? We should


know how much of that £41 million is tax.
Whatever the figure is—and I hope that he will be able to clarify it now or later—this is a very large difference.
Every child in every family is helped, wholly irrespective of need. I suppose that, like my noble Friend, I should declare an interest as the father of four children. Yet in spite of this enormous expenditure, about half of the half-million children now below supplementary benefit scale will still be below that scale after next April. The hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) quoted a case of a constituent in respect of whom the changes in the Bill had made a relatively small improvement. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, to what level would it have been necessary to raise family allowances to bring all these children to the supplementary benefit level? What would have been the figure required, and what would have been the total cost?
The crux of the debate is reflected in those figures. If we could—I know that it is a big "if"—find some acceptable means to help only those who need help, in this case the half-million children, we could help them all to the full extent needed at a fraction of the cost proposed by the Bill—and yet the Bill meets the needs of only half of them. For instance, £1 a week for each of those children, including first children, would cost £25 million, which is the cost of the proposed changes in respect of school milk and school meals.
I am not suggesting that we on these benches claim to have solved all these problems. We make no such claim. Nor is it wholly reasonable for a Government to expect an Opposition to do all their work for them. What my hon. and right hon. Friends have done in the debate, as well as hon. Members opposite, is to put forward ideas. We should like to be sure that the Government will take these ideas seriously, and that the Government will not be be-devilled by the phrases of the 1930s. In a very courageous speech, the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) attacked the suggestion that because in the 1930s a particular means test caused a great deal of ill-feeling, then in the late 1960s and moving into the 1970s we can never have any form of selec-

tivity—and how right he was. It seems to me that so much of the debate has been basically an exercise in semantics. We are arguing about means tests and selectivity when what we must do is to get down to describing what we are talking about and stop using catch phrases. I agree with the right hon. Lady's comment about a need for definition. We must stop using catch phrases—means test, selectivity, or anything else. Let us say what we mean.
Many suggestions have been put forward which could produce the germ of an agreed policy of selectivity, means test or whatever phrase we use. Perhaps I may again quote the right hon. Member for Sowerby, if I still need to do so after his intervention. He put this point so clearly in his article that I need not apologise for quoting it. He wrote:
The big question here is whether the 'fiscal benefits' of the income tax system shall be interlocked with the social security benefits to provide a means test with no more indignity than the filling up of a tax return.
That theme has run through the debate continually. The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) mentioned it, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), and the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton, to his surprise, found himself in agreement. If the right hon. Member for Sowerby had spoken the subject would have been mentioned once more. The theme has run through the debate. There is an underlying wish which the right hon. Lady has not expressed—but to which I hope she will become more sympathetic when she has been longer in the Ministry—to find a system on these lines or one like the Danish system, which my noble Friend mentioned, which will give the benefit of a diversion of resources where need exists and not generally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) mentioned another proposition which I should like to support. She suggested that it would be an excellent thing if some form of option scheme were provided giving a choice between the child tax allowance and the family allowance. This was carefully argued in New Society in January. I do not wish to analyse the whole of the article. Nor do I agree with everything it said. But


if the sort of scheme that the right hon. Member for Sowerby and others have advocated is not something that can be achieved, there might be a case at least in an atmosphere of lowering direct taxation—and I hope that even this Government are bound to get round to that—for some sort of option as between the child tax allowance and the family allowance. The article by Mr. A. C. Aydon, was very well argued and is worth serious consideration.
Then there is a great deal to be said for some mitigation of the extreme harshness of the rule about there being no supplementary benefit to people in work and, secondly, the wage stop. Here I would like to put the idea that there could be some somt sort of gearing in this matter rather similar to the gearing which already exists in the earnings rule for retirement pensioners. Would it not be possible, if not to bring wages up to the full figure, at least to go half way with a 6d. in the 1s. formula?
Finally, would it not be possible to consider some form of cash voucher for families entitled to free school meals instead of the present system, which causes great difficulty? If every child, whatever the source of the money, came along on Monday morning with 5s. in his pocket, this might help the problem. I ask the right hon. Lady to consider this point seriously. It was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick.
Unless we can find between us in this House some means whereby we can concentrate help and not spread it right across the board, two things will follow as night follows day. First, as in this case, the worst cases will never get as much help as they need, for that will always be too expensive. The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick spoke of the rising standard by which we judge poverty in this country. I hope that we shall go on raising our standard of what we regard as intolerable for people to fall below. If we do not find some means of channelling help where it is needed, the aspirations of society will always chase its means and never catch them up.
Secondly, and equally important, we shall commit ourselves to a level of taxa-

tion on the vigorous and active which will destroy incentive and put an effective brake on the creation of wealth, and therefore, in the long run, the needy will be worse off. This is not just a chimera. It follows from the age structure of our society. In The Times on 31st May, Mr. Peter Jay made the point clearly that, between 1966 and 1980, the population of Great Britain is officially forecast to increase by 6,100,000 whereas the working population is only expected to increase by 800,000.
These figures should give anyone who says that all social benefits must be universal cause to think. Are we really going to be able to have an adequate social security system and yet have an incentive society if we do not channel the means to where the need is? My answer is clear. I do not pretend I know precisely how we are to do it but I do know that we have to do it.
Finally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say something more about the costing of these things and will not, like his right hon. Friend, be content with mumblings about the Budget. I do not want to know now what the Chancellor is going to say about the rate of Income Tax or to pry into Budget secrets. It would be useless for me to do so. But is this Measure to be financed out of general taxation? In other words, will it be like all the other new charges on the Exchequer or will it be financed, as the Secretary of State for Education and Science hinted in July, out of selective tax charges against the family man? This much we are entitled to know.
The right hon. Lady gave a rather different gloss on this. It should be possible for the Government to say now that they have finally dropped, as I hope they have, the idea of selecting the family man among taxpayers to bear the whole of the burden. There has been a fashionable view—and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), with much of whose speech I agreed, seemed under the illusion that there is really no difference between a child allowance under the taxation system and the payment of a family allowance. There is nothing in common between the two. The tax allowance is not a social benefit; it is an allowance to an individual to keep more of his own money. It is an assessment of his ability to pay.

Dr. Owen: It seems a paradox to argue, on the one hand, that the taxation and social benefits systems should be linked, as has been constantly advocated from the benches opposite, through P.A.Y.E. or some taxes in reverse, and trying to draw this incredible distinction on the other. The scheme I suggested would have an option system of family allowances. It does not add up.

Mr. Worsley: I do not agree. If the child allowance were to be abolished in the next Budget, it would simply mean that the whole cost of an additional payment of family allowances would fall upon the family man and no one else, that the person whose children were grown up or the bachelor would escape. Why should the Government propose such an enormous advantage to bachelors in this respect? But that is what it would mean.

Mr. Archer: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the idea is that the child tax allowance should be reduced only to the extent which enables the family man paying the standard rate to break even? It is not suggested that he should be worse off.

Mr. Worsley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has more information. It is difficult to find out what the Government intend. Perhaps we may hear more about it tonight. I want to make clear that any increase in direct taxation, and particularly a selective increase against the family man, will be bitterly opposed by us. I can imagine nothing that would encourage the brain drain more. If the Government are seriously worried about that, this is something they will not do.
We shall not divide against the Bill because, despite the hamfistedness, this provision helps the family. The hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) called it half a loaf—I do not think he went so far as to call it half baked. We believe that the job could be better done. We urge the Government to take their responsibilities in this respect more seriously, to look more carefully at the possibilities, and to present a real reform of the social services before too long.

8.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): The hon. Member

for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) began by referring to my right. hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), the previous Minister, and to the way in which she prefaced each of her speeches on family poverty and the social services with a description of what the Labour Government had done since 1964.
He said that we on this side kept referring to what the Tory Government had not done in 13 years, and finished on that part of his speech by saying "Don't, for heaven's sake, let us talk about what the Tories failed to do in 13 years." He then proceeded to talk about what Labour had not done in three years. He may have done it very well, but he cannot have it both ways. If he does not want us to speak about the tragic failures of the Tory period of office, he cannot very well accuse us of having failed to achieve all those things that ought to have been achieved when we have so far had rather less than a quarter of the time in which to do it.
The hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) made a very long speech of which perhaps the most significant feature was a demonstration once or twice of his lack of understanding of the whole scheme of social security benefits and, at the same time, a display of a peculiar indecision. He never once said precisely what Tory Party thinking was on any single aspect of social security. I do not expect an Opposition to outline in detail any plans they may have for solving any of the problems with which a Government are faced. When I sat on the opposite side of the Chamber I often said, "You are the Government." I do not expect the Opposition to give us detailed proposals for the solution of any of our problems, but at least they could tell us roughly what they would do to deal with the situation the Government face. This is the responsibility of an Opposition.
The hon. Gentleman coined a new phrase to cover selectivity, but it was so long that I did not take it down. My right hon. Friend had already referred to the various descriptions given to schemes which are, in fact, means tests. The hon. Gentleman tried to say that he would concentrate the greatest amount of help where the greatest need existed. That was the new phrase to describe his means test. He should be perfectly honest and


say that what he wants for the solution of poverty is the application of a means test of a direct kind.

Lord Balniel: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for giving way. He interrupted my speech and queried my figures. I am glad to be able to tell him that I have now checked my figures. It is my figures that are right and his that are wrong.
He asked me about selectivity. It is quite true that I referred to a concentration of help on those in the greatest of need. I ask him whether he agrees that the following is the right selection of priorities. The total result under the Bill is that a widow with two children will receive an increase of 3s. a week. A married couple earning £150 a week, with two children, will receive an increase, with tax adjusted, of 3s. 9d. a week. Is this the correct selection of priorities?

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member has exploited the situation for his own ends. He indicated his wish to intervene, presumably to answer the point I was making. He then proceeded further to demonstrate his ignorance of the Bill, as I will show quite clearly in a minute or two.
He made two specific points, one of which related to the Government's financing of the increases. He said that it was the first time in history that a Government had made social security proposals to the House without saying specifically how they were to be financed. I have checked on previous increases of family allowances, and find that there is a good reason for this procedure, and one that I should have thought would have been obvious to the hon. Gentleman.
In practice, we are providing for benefits to begin in the next tax year, whereas on previous occasions the benefits have been allowed for in the preceding Budget. If it were a constitutional axiom that no Government could incur any expenditure unless they first came to the House, a lot of expenditure could never possibly be incurred. For instance, if we wanted to increase aid to foreign countries, we could not make any payments until we had first explained to the House where the money was to come from. Quite frankly, the real reason why there has not been a clear explanation of where

the money is to be found—although it is paid from the general Exchequer fund—is the time factor more than anything else.
The hon. Member for Chelsea said that no hon. Member had given wholehearted support of the Bill and that it had received only qualified support. Of course, everyone gives qualified support. During the time that I have been a Member of the House, I do not remember any Measure which has been put forward and which was in some degree controversial, even in the methods by which it was to be put into effect, which did not receive qualified support. The danger is that because the Measure is critised—I do not object to criticism, because that is the only way to arrive at the desired end—there is a chance of obscuring the nature of the Bill.
It might be as well if I reiterate some of its features before I answer the points which have been made. The proposed 7s. increase represents the Government's judgment of how much of our scarce resources can justifiably be devoted to family allowances at this point of time. The House will agree that priorities have to be carefully judged and expenditure made where the Government feel that a call for it must be satisfied.
Various points can be made concerning the increases. First, they are substantial. A family with four children will get an extra 21s. a week and a family with six children an extra 35s. a week. By any standards, those are substantial supplements for those families.
I want briefly to make a comparison with the present value of the previous family allowance rates when they were introduced. The 5s. rate introduced in 1946 is today worth 10s. 7d. The 8s. rate introduced in September, 1952, is worth 12s. 7d. The 10s. rate introduced for third and subsequent children is today worth 13s. 7d.
Therefore, in viewing the increases which we are giving, it will be seen that the Government are not merely restoring those values, but are giving a substantial increase in real terms. The rate will be 15s. for the second child and 17s. for the third child. Family allowances will thus have a higher real value than ever before. An addition of 4s. 7d. would be sufficient to restore the value of the 8s. allowance introduced in 1952. Instead. we are giving 7s.
Thirdly, there is the question of the number of families below the supplementary benefit level. The family circumstances inquiry showed that in June and July, 1966, 160,000 families with 500,000 children had resources below their requirements as measured by supplementary benefit standards. It is, however, unreal to assume that those figures still apply. The survey was carried out in the summer of 1966 and the results were measured against the supplementary benefit rates which did not apply until November, 1966. Since January this year, there have been pay awards for the lower paid which will tend to reduce the figures considerably.
Most of us, particularly those who before coming to the House of Commons were trade union officials and had the task of negotiating on behalf of a large section of lower-paid workers, realise the real effect that the Government's prices and incomes policy has had on lower-paid wage earners. Under the wages council for distributive workers there have been wage increases for no fewer than 1,300,000 workers, while another 270,000 distributive workers outside the scope of wages councils have also benefited, in addition to 400,000 agricultural workers. Throughout the whole range of lower-paid workers, the supplementary benefit figures have consequently changed.
The Government's proposals for rate rebates, welfare milk and school meals will also be of particular help to poorer families. Any allegation that the Government are deliberately leaving a quarter of a million children in poverty must be firmly rejected.
One hon. Member advocated the abolition of family allowances. He did not, however, mean that there should be no such allowances. He simply wanted a different type of allowance. One of the things which should be made clear is that supplementary benefits, dependency benefits and family allowances are in many respects, and always have been, complementary benefits. When there are increases in family allowances, it is almost inevitable that there will be offsets in the complementary benefits.
The noble Lord the Member for Hertford said that I had interrupted him and that I was wrong in my figures. He will, I think, accept that when I interrupted him in the first instance, I did so in the

kindest possible way. I did not quite make myself clear and I had to intervene again to explain what I meant.
The noble Lord argued that in the dependency benefit sector—sickness, unemployment and other dependency benefits—a two-child family would receive 3s. What the noble Lord overlooked was that we are increasing the first-child dependency allowance from 25s. to 28s., which represents a 3s. increase, and that there is then a 4s. offset for the second child, making a 3s. increase on that child. In practice, therefore, the two-child family will get 6s. and not 3s. as the noble Lord suggests.

Mr. Fortescue: Is there anything objectionable or impracticable in the system of negative Income Tax which I proposed, at far less cost to the nation than the present system?

Mr. Loughlin: The chief objection is that we estimate that it would be nine years before we could put it into effect, because of the administrative technicalities. This is a substantial objection.
The question of the offsets is strictly a Committee point. I assure the noble Lord that I am correct in stating that it is 6s. and not 3s. for a two-child family.
The increases we are giving in family allowances are part of the package deal. I have referred to the weekly increases. There will be additional benefits for larger families, because it is the Government's intention to ensure that fourth and subsequent children will get free school meals, a benefit worth 3s. 8d. a week spread over the whole year, although I would not suggest that every family of four will get the straight 3s. 8d., because there will be offsets in that some of the other children will pay increases. When it is worked out, there is an additional benefit in the package deal for fourth and subsequent children.
I come to the vexed question of selectivity. In the last debate on family poverty the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. I echo my right hon. Friend's expression of regret that the hon. Lady no longer speaks in these matters from that position, although this does not in any way detract from the welcome I have extended to the noble


Lord. In that debate the hon. Lady referred to Professor Titmuss. Others—she could have referred also to the noble Lord, had the speech he made today been made prior to that debate—have tried to confuse the whole issue of means tests. The hon. Lady said that she was a North Country woman and called a spade a shovel.
I wish members of the Opposition would accept that advice, because the country has a right to know precisely how far the Tory Party is prepared to extend means testing of a direct kind. If the Tory Party suggests extending means testing to social security monetary payments, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out it is equally important to consider social services which are in kind. The means test cannot possibly be applied to social security monetary payments unless it is accepted, equally, that means testing will be applied to services supplied by the State.
The whole concept of means testing as now advanced by the Opposition is based upon the principle that in the affluent society the individual ought to make greater provision for his and his dependants' needs. I am surprised that the Tories have bothered to produce various odd terms to cover their intentions, because I well remember the publication which came from the Conservative Political Centre in February, 1961, which was a classic examination of the whole question of means testing, particularly the article by Godfrey Hodgson.
This is the dangerous situation in which hon. Members opposite will find themselves if they adhere to their present argument based upon the individual provision in a period of affluence. This is the logical conclusion that one reaches. Now that the hon. Gentleman is speaking under this umbrella term of means testing, it would be interesting if he could tell us whether in his examination of this problem he has reached the point to which Godfrey Hodgson was driven in logic, namely that there should be means testing and there should be an individual contribution for children in primary schools whereby parents would pay £5 a term in senior schools and £3 a term in primary schools. It would be interesting if hon. Members opposite would let the people know precisely what

they intend to do. I know that the Tory Party want to apply means testing to the Health Service, to housing and social security. There is only one other social service left—education—and we ought to know whether they are prepared to extend means testing to that service.

Captain W. Elliot: Without going into these abstruse problems, could the hon. Gentleman answer me this question? Members of the Government recently had a fairly large salary increase. Does he feel that this child allowance which is proposed in the Bill should go equally to them as to the lower-paid workers whom he is talking about?

Mr. Loughlin: I will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman why this means testing is not possible in a minute or two.

Captain W. Elliot: Answer my question.

Mr. Loughlin: I will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman why in in minute or two. The arguments for and against means testing in this sphere of social security were exhaustively canvassed in the debate on child poverty on 20th April this year, and the Government, after careful consideration of all the issues, decided that the arguments against are conclusive. Any means testing scheme must involve a reduced financial incentive to beneficiaries to increase or even maintain their earnings. There would be accusations of deliberate slacking, whether well-founded or not, and there would be considerable feeling between the responsible man who worked hard enough to be independent and the man who, for example, refused overtime because he preferred to rely on means test benefits. As to whether means testing for family allowances would be a disincentive or not, I believe it would. Indeed, when we discussed this with the T.U.C., the T.U.C. was unanimously of the opinion that with means testing on family allowances, a supplementation of this kind would be a disincentive.
What I would be much more concerned about is this. One of the most important contributions to productivity, particularly in a unit where there is a small group system in operation, is the minimising of tensions between the persons within the group. A man might be quite genuine. He might be feeling under the weather—this applies to many of us; it certainly


applies to me and, no doubt to many other hon. Members—and he might decide that he did not wish to do overtime. Although overtime is voluntary, we have always accepted in industry that there should be a reasonable measure of overtime.
There might be a situation where a man could not work hard enough and where the group earnings were dependent upon the individual contribution. If it were known that that man was subject to supplementation, the mere fact that he was in those circumstances would create great tensions within the group and affect productivity. As one who has participated in schemes for increased productivity in industry, my first reaction to selectivity of that kind would be to reject it because of its effect on productivity, quite apart from the personal disincentive effect on the man concerned.
I reject it for another reason. It is accepted that there has always been a reluctance on the part of people to claim a benefit if it involved submission to a direct means test. This is a difficult attitude to break down, though we have broken it down to a certain extent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North, when she was Minister, instituted a massive publicity campaign and managed to induce a good many people to come forward for supplementation. Nevertheless, although it is possible to run a great campaign like that, the problem remains a difficult one, particularly in respect of retired persons, and it would, inevitably, be more difficult to induce men who are working full time to come forward and apply for supplementation of this kind.
There is no point in our accepting the need for augmentation of men's wages—which is what the Bill is about—in the form of family allowances to make provision for the children, and then put it on a means test basis when we know that the people concerned, or the great bulk of them, will not even apply for it.
I turn now to the administrative difficulty of means testing, even in the modern context of computerisation. To some extent, this applies just as much to the Danish scheme, and it applies to some extent—though I do not rule out negative Income Tax altogether—to a negative Income Tax arrangement. What one must always bear in mind when talking

of supplementation is that we are trying to meet the needs of a family or a person at a time when assistance is really needed. I have heard it said that we could introduce a scheme based upon the P.A.Y.E. system and the present P.60 form. I do not understand this. Those who know anything about the P.60 know that it relates to 12 months ago, or even more than that because, very often, employers do not send the forms out until three or four months after the end of the year. It is not the slightest good trying to help people who are in poverty by taking as one's basis an ascertained period 12 months out of date.
What amazes me is that people are so attracted to means testing of this kind. A large number of factors changes the circumstances of a family. I do not want to give a full list, but they include births, school leaving, marriage, remarriage, divorce, separation, desertion, deaths, adoptions, illness, changes of employment, unemployment, changes in wages and earnings, overtime, work study projects, and self-employment. A person in industry can be involved in one or a combination of such factors over a period, and in consequence means-testing would not relieve his poverty in any way.
It would mean in practice that if we wanted to introduce schemes comprehensive enough to deal with the immediate poverty problems of people in industry, we should have to impose on the employer the task of paying supplementation.
The only alternative would be to have a very fast interchange of information on all the changes of circumstances, not just of one employee but of them all. It would have to be transmitted on a weekly or monthly basis to the local Inland Revenue authorities, or otherwise the situation could not be dealt with. Let us imagine the cost to industry of a burden of that kind. That is one of the things we should do when considering selectivity, at least as it concerns supplementing the income of employed people. I accept that selectivity can work when people are unemployed or sick, but when so many different factors are likely to interplay in the life of the individual when he is working we should get down to trying to obtain a complete picture of every factor likely to influence the situation.

Mr. Fortescue: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that practically all, if not all, the factors he has listed as affecting wage earners also apply to Income Tax payers? If my income changes slightly the coding is changed by the Inland Revenue authorities remarkably quickly—usually far too quickly for my liking. The whole P.A.Y.E. system was launched in far less than the nine years the hon. Gentleman has spoken about. We now have computers, which we did not have then, and I do not accept that the system is an impossibility.

Mr. Loughlin: When my coding has to change it takes a month, or possibly two or three. In such a period the fellow concerned may have changed his job and his earning may have been reduced by, say, £3. We cannot have a man waiting three months before we give him assistance, for otherwise we are not meeting the need. If we waited three months and then gave the assistance he might have gone to another job where he no longer needed it. It would pay some hon. Members to examine closely how it would be possible to apply any form of selectivity or use Income Tax returns.
Many hon. Members referred to the wage-stop. My right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and I are as conscious as anyone of the effect of the wage-stop in different circumstances. I do not know whether it is possible to get rid of the wage-stop completely. It is not because we want the wage-stop principle to be a deterrent, which was the old principle, but, as hon. Members know, it is very difficult if there is a situation in which those who are in work are receiving less than those who are out of work. One can imagine what is likely to happen—say, in a pit village—where a surface worker is living next door to another surface worker and one goes out of work and, so soon as he goes on supplementation, gets more than the man who is still working. It is a very difficult problem.
We are conscious of the difficulties in the application of the rules, and we have at the present time the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which is examining the whole question of the wage-stop. If, possibly, we change it, it would need legislation; but I can assure the House

that we will do what we can to meet the basic objections which have been advanced in this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) referred to the duration of the unemployment pay. Here again, also, we are equally conscious of the difficulty, and we are examining whether it is likely to be possible to extend the duration, either wholly, or in certain circumstances.
There were one or two other questions which I really ought to try to answer. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) read out to the House a letter. It was the type of thing which is being peddled both in the Press and now, apparently, in the House of Commons. The letter which he read was an anonymous letter. I know what I do with anonymous letters, irrespective of their contents. I put them in the wastepaper basket. However, since he read out that anonymous letter which, for all I know, may have been written by his brother, and because it was suggested that it was written by a man who all his life has been a member of the Labour Party and has decided, in the light of the policies we have pursued, to withdraw from the Labour Party, I should like to get my commercial in as well. I was handed this letter while I was on this bench—and it is signed, and it has an address. I do not propose to disclose to the world the name of the writer or the address, but I will to the hon. Member afterwards, if he likes. It says:
My wife and I have been members of the Labour Party all our lives, first in North St. Pancras, and 35 years in East Harrow. We are honorary members. We have helped in every election. We think the Government are doing a marvellous job in spite of the anti Press, and to show our appreciation we are sending you our first week's increase in pension. Yours sincerely.
The hon. Member for Chelsea asked me a question about the actual make up of the £124 million, and asked about the difference between the £124 million and the £83 million net of tax. I think he answered himself, that the greater proportion of it was tax savings. He wanted to know the savings in what he called "other ways". The difference is that there are savings of £8 million in the dependency and supplementary benefits. That is the short answer.

Mr. Worsley: The whole of the rest is savings of Income Tax and Surtax.

Mr. Loughlin: Yes. I think that I have answered most of the points which have been raised. The Bill may not resolve all the family poverty which exists at present—

Dame Joan Vickers: I did ask the hon. Gentleman to give the House a definition of "child", and to tell us when a child is eligible for allowance.

Mr. Loughlin: I apologise to the hon. Lady. It was not my intention to overlook the point. The Family Allowance Act, 1965, provides that a person shall be treated as a child when under the upper limit of the compulsory school leaving age, when under 19 and undergoing full-time instruction in school or being an apprentice, and when under 16 and incapacitated for regular employment.
Irrespective of the arguments which we have heard today about the failure of the Government to produce some sort of grand strategy, as though such a strategy could be produced and released a piece at a time, and while admitting that the Bill will not solve all the poverty which exists in families at the moment, in the light of the contributions which we have made in our three short years in office, I think I can commend this Measure to the House. It will make a contribution to the happiness of a lot of families.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committtee of the whole House.—[Mr. Howie.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase family allowances under the Family Allowances Act, 1965, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

A. of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under the Family Allowances Act, 1965 (whether on account of allow-

ances or in respect of administrative expenses or otherwise) which is attributable to any provision of that Act of the present Session—

(a) increasing the weekly rates of allowances payable under the Family Allowances Act, 1965 in respect of the first child of a family other than the elder or eldest and in respect of each other such child to amounts not exceeding 15 shillings and 17 shillings, respectively;
(b) conferring power to make provision by regulations under the Family Allowances Act, 1965 as to the circumstances in which a person is to be treated as a child as being under the upper limit of the compulsory school age, or extending the power to make regulations under that Act as to the circumstances in which a person is to be treated as undergoing fulltime instruction in a school;

B. subject to the provision made by section 85 of the National Insurance Act, 1965 for reimbursement out of the National Insurance Fund or by section 61 of the National Insurance (Indusrtial Injuries) Act, 1965 for reimbursement out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, of any increase in the expenses of the Minister of Social Security or any other Government department which are so payable under either of those sections, being an increase attributable to any provision included in that Act of the present Session in connection with any such provision as is mentioned in paragraph A above.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Howie.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of section 3 of the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act, 1959 and Part I of, and Schedule 1 to, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962 till the end of December, 1968, and of Part VII of the Licensing Act, 1964 till the end of March, 1969, being expenses which under any Act are to be paid out of such moneys.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

Orders of the Day — SOUTHERN RHODESIA

8.55 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): I beg to move,
That the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965 (Continuation) Order, 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved.
The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, who is at present touring East and Southern Africa, has arrived in Rhodesia today. On recommendation of the Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs, and under his aegis, my right hon. Friend has met Mr. Smith and will be meeting other Rhodesians. My right hon. Friend had a very long discussion with Mr. Smith today and will be meeting Mr. Smith again tomorrow morning. My right hon. Friend will, of course, be making a full report to the House shortly after his return. In the meantime, however, it is esssential for the 1965 Act to be renewed in order to give the Government the necessary powers to endeavour to bring about the restoration of constitutional government in Rhodesia.
In view of the conversations now taking place in Salisbury, and also in view of the conversations that have taken place in the independent black African countries, it would be unwise for us tonight to enter into a detailed discussion on Rhodesia. The House will want to be informed by my right hon. Friend of the result of his extensive discussions and will, I know, not want to add to his difficulties whilst he is in Africa. For these reasons, I hope that the House will agree to this Motion.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: We should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said in moving this Order. Last November a similar Order was moved, I believe silently, by the then Secretary of State and there was a short debate. Hon. Members will remember that the Rhodesian situation at that time, November 1966, was clearly moving to a crisis. There were very general hopes when the meeting on the "Tiger" took place three weeks later, but, as we know, the talks on the "Tiger" did not resolve

the matter and the full inquest of Parliament took place early in December.
As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, at this time, when the Continuation Order, 1967, comes to Parliament for approval, it may be that we are again near a crisis in the Rhodesian dispute.
The Prime Minister, for some reason, chose to herald the visit of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with a rather depressingly cold douche of pessimism last week. I doubt whether this kind of gloomy forecast is likely to assist the sort of settlement which I am convinced, and I think the hon. Gentleman would agree, is the earnest wish of the majority of people not only in Britain but also in Rhodesia. But I am certain, and again I think the hon. Gentleman would agree, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with his persistence and his transparent honesty, is the very last person to be deterred by it. Many of us feel a confidence in his right hon. Friend which unfortunately does not seem to be shared by the Prime Minister.
The consequences of failure, for the whole Rhodesian people, are so grave that we on this side of the House are passionately anxious neither to do nor to say anything which would jeopardise the chances of an agreement. Time, as we all realise, is getting short, and with every week that goes by, a solution to this problem becomes more urgent. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, reported that the prospects of success would not grow larger but would dwindle as time went on, and indeed, I think we are all conscious that soon we may be approaching the point of no return. Therefore, the consequences of failure in 1967 are greater than the consequences of failure aboard the "Tiger" last year, and our hopes that the right hon. Gentleman will be successful are, for similar reasons, even greater than they were a year ago.
But there is a further reason why we do not intend to pick a conflict with the Government on the proposal to continue Section 2 of the 1965 Act for another year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the past we have expressed our grave doubts about the likelihood of United Nations mandatory sanctions leading to the result that we would all like to see, a return to constitutional government in Rhodesia. We believed that it would


much more likely lead to the union of all Rhodesian opinion than divide the moderates from the extremists.
In my view, there must be an incentive to draw Rhodesia to the new legality of which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition spoke on Tuesday. My right hon. Friend has recently defined, and the Conservative Party has overwhelmingly endorsed, the place of sanctions within a constructive policy framework, a framework in which the right hon. Gentleman's talks this week are the first essential part.
I am convinced that it should not be impossible to achieve agreement on a new constitution based on the "Tiger" proposals. The acceptability of such an agreement to the people in Rhodesia would be tested by a Royal Commission, and if that Royal Commission reported favourably, then Rhodesian independence could, and would, be secured on the basis of the new constitution by an Act of Parliament. Until the Report of the Royal Commission was received it would be understood that on one side Rhodesia would maintain its unilateral declaration of independence and on the other sanctions would remain unaltered. It is for this reason that we have no intention of voting against the Order.
We would like to wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his important talks, and we trust, if they are fruitful, that the Prime Minister will push forward with their consequences, without delay, and with courage and resolution.

9.8 p.m.

Sir Dingle Foot: Nobody has a greater regard than I have for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but the issues involved here are so important that I do not think we can pass this Order on the nod, as he appeared to suggest.
The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) addressed the House with great moderation. He did not explain, any more than his leader did a day or two ago, what was meant by the "new legality", and he did not echo the sort of speeches which are made in the country, and by his hon. Friends. But the suggestion which is constantly being made from the other side of the House, which was made at the Brighton conference, and which is made in certain sections of the Press, is that the present state of

affairs is entirely the fault of Her Majesty's Government in this country, and that all that is needed is for somebody to be sufficiently diligent, or sufficiently adroit, to find a formula which will be acceptable both to the British Government and to the Smith régime.
The argument runs that there need be only one or two variations in the "Tiger" constitution—and this has just been echoed in the right hon. Gentleman's speech—and all will be well. It is suggested that if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had only had a little more patience, if he and Mr. Smith had remained on H.M.S. "Tiger" a day or two longer, that would have been an end to the matter. Indeed, that suggestion was implicit in the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at the Brighton conference. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be here this evening. I notified him that I intended to refer to his speech.
In his speech at Brighton he said:
This tragedy has been bedevilled over these last years by suspicion and mistrust which goes so deep. That would never have happened had they still been handled by Sir Alec or Mr. Maudling.
The suggestion is that if only the superior talents of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) or the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) had still been available the problem of Rhodesia would by now have been solved. They could not agree with Mr. Smith while they were in office, but it is suggested that if only they had remained either they would have developed some mysterious expertise or there would have been a change of heart on the part of the Smith régime.
This is not only nonsense; it is pernicious nonsense, because in so far as it is believed by anyone it obscures from the people of this country the real nature of the problem and the kind of régime which now exists in Salisbury. The suggestion is that the causes of suspicion and mistrust are the fault of Her Majesty's Government; in fact, they are entirely to be found in Rhodesia.
I do not want to go over too much history, but it is material to recall the record of the last seven years. In 1960—even before the days of the Smith régime—the Government of Southern Rhodesia


passed the Law and Order Maintenance Act. That led to the resignation of the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Tredgold, who said:
This Bill outrages almost every basic human right and is in addition an unwarranted invasion by the Executive of the sphere of the Judiciary.
He went on to describe the Bill—and I hope that hon. Members opposite agree—as "savage, mean and dirty."
Since then there have been various Amendments, making the Act even more repressive than it was in the first place. It is being used to prevent every form of political expression which is distasteful to the régime. Seven years ago in Southern Rhodesia there were great public meetings addressed by Mr. Joshua Nkomo and other African leaders. They were attended by large numbers of people—far larger than any number who would have gone to listen to Mr. Smith or his associates.
There are no such meetings today because the leaders who used to address them have, for the last four years, been in detention without trial and without charge. It is they who are really entitled to speak for the people of Rhodesia. When the Commonwealth Secretary—Mr. Bowden, as he then was—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General went to Salisbury last year, and when Lord Alport went this year, they were not even allowed to meet the African leaders in detention. I wonder what possible explanation there can be for that, except sheer bloody-mindedness on the part of the régime.
It is worth inquiring why they are detained. I want to quote from a very authoritative pamphlet entitled, "Rhodesia and Ourselves", issued recently by the Joint International Representatives of the British Council of Churches and the Conference of British Missionary Societies. It says:
"One of the tragedies of Rhodesia is that most Europeans do not know how African fellow citizens have been muzzled and controlled as a result of this Act"—
that is the Law and Order Maintenance Act—
This is why they react so passionately to any suggestion that Rhodesia is a police state. Yet the facts speak for themselves. In the last six years thousands of Africans have been kept for longer or shorter periods in detention

or restriction without trial, some for periods of five years. Some of these were guilty of physical intimidation of their fellows; but the great majority have been treated in this way because of their political views, because they were known to speak against minority white government and racial segregation, or had previously sought to organise political parties to express their opposition. (The African political parties were banned under the 'Unlawful Organisations Act' of 1962.) Cases are known of re-arrest and detention as many as three times. When arrests are made, it is a common experience for a whole family to be awakened in fright in the early hours of the morning while the police make the arrest, which may lead to a comparatively short period of detention—without even the pretence of questioning—before release. It is difficult not to conclude that this is being used as a method of intimidation of the African élite. All this was happening before U.D.I.
This was happening long before the General Election in this country of 1964, so it made no difference which political party was in power here. Whichever party has been in power here, in Southern Rhodesia one act of repression has followed another.
I will give the House one personal experience. The last time that I arrived in Salisbury was in the late summer of 1964, on the day that the régime was suppressing the African Daily News. No one had much doubt about why it was suppressed—it was because it was the only daily newspaper in the English language which expressed African opinion. I went to the Parliament House and heard the speech of the Minister Mr. Lardner Burke, a speech which would have been worthy of Dr. Goebbels.
Perhaps I may convey to the House Mr. Smith's idea of Parliamentary debate. Mr. Lardner Burke made a speech of a kind. There was then a series of speeches from the Opposition benches, with both European and African speakers attacking what had been done. No attempt was made to answer their arguments—

Mr. Patrick Wall: Just like here.

Sir D. Foot: —and after an hour or two, someone pointed out that, apart from that of the Minister, not one speech had been made from the Government benches. Mr. Smith then rose and said, "There is no need for it. We arrived at a decision in our caucus meetings and, therefore, there is no reason for anyone other than the Minister to speak."


[Laughter.] This is terribly amusing to hon. Members opposite. These are the people whom they are supporting.
Since then, we have seen the fantastic censorship described in yesterday's Times newspaper and complete Government control, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, of television and broadcasting. That is, of course, by no means the end of the story. Everyone who follows events in Southern Rhodesia knows that the situation is constantly deteriorating. There is the Municipal Amendment Bill which provides for still further segregation—having been in Southern Rhodesia, I find it difficult to understand how there could be much further segregation—of the races in places of public resort. There is the Property Owners Protection Bill, under which Asian and coloured people living in what is designated a European area will be evicted from their homes, which they have, in so many cases, occupied for many years, without even any reasonable compensation.
When the party opposite brought in the 1961 Constitution for Rhodesia and forced it through against the protests of the Labour and Liberal Parties in the House, they assured us that they were incorporating in the Constitution the Rhodesian Declaration of Rights and they set up the Constitutional Council, which could veto, provisionally at any rate, any measures which it thought infringed that declaration. However, of course, that council in its turn could be over-ruled by a two-thirds majority in the Legislature, and that is what has happened in the last day or two over those two Bills.
I do not think that it can happen, but if my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary were to reach an agreement with Mr. Smith in the next few days, and if we received certain guarantees and promises, they would be worth just as much as the Rhodesian Declaration of Rights in their Constitution. It would be worth just as much as the assurance which Mr. Smith gave to the Governor a day or two before U.D.I., when he asked him for a proclamation of emergency and assured him that it had nothing to do with U.D.I. It would be worth just as much as the assurance which Mr. Smith gave before he went to the "Tiger" talks in which he said that he

was attending with plenipotentiary powers.
There was one point on which I did not wholly agree with the way in which the matter was put by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He spoke of a return to constitutional rule. I do not think that this is a question of legality or illegality. The question which we have to put to ourselves in the House is how we discharge our responsibility for the people of Rhodesia—and I mean by that all the people of Rhodesia.
That brings me to the very vexed question of the possible use of force. Again I quote what was said by the Leader of the Opposition at Brighton. He said:
We reject the use of force to settle this problem absolutely and completely.
At this stage there was loud applause. He continued:
We reject the use of British Forces. There are those of the Liberal Party who are so anxious to stop bombing in Vietnam and eager to start bombing in Rhodesia. We reject the use of force through irregulars across the frontiers. We reject the use of force by the United Nations, which could only lead to the chaos of the Congo again.
I will deal with that in a moment, but I would interpose that the Conservative Party do not always reject the use of force. They did not reject it in 1956 at the time of the Suez adventure.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a wide debate, but not as wide as that.

Sir D. Foot: I do not want to go too wide. I only wanted to make the comment in passing that possibly the modern Conservative doctrine is that they do not reject the use of force provided that it is accompanied by fraud and deception.
I should like to return to the words which I have just read that the Conservatives reject the use of force. How do they suppose that Rhodesia is being governed at the present time except by the use of force? Certainly it is not governed by consent. Certainly there has been no consultation whatever with the vast majority—17 out of every 18 Rhodesians—in Rhodesia. Of course the régime is sustained only by force. It is maintained only by locking up its opponents, suppressing every form of criticism and relying on the security forces. What was meant by the right hon. Gentleman and by those


who argue in support of him was that it is tolerable if force is used by the oppressors but on no account must it ever be resorted to by or on behalf of the oppressed.
I am fully aware that at the time of U.D.I. Her Majesty's Government disclaimed the use of military force unless there was a breakdown of law and order. But now we have a new situation, because it is evident that last August fighting took place upon a very considerable scale on Rhodesian territory. I remind the House of an article which appeared on Monday of last week in the Guardian by their Commonwealth correspondent, who had been reading information which had appeared in parts of the South African Press but which, of course, had not been allowed to appear in any newspaper in Southern Rhodesia. He wrote:
British correspondents visiting southern Africa have—rightly—been sceptical of earlier claims by the African nationalists about fighting in the Rhodesian bush. But there was a different tone to the reports that started appearing in the big Johannesburg papers in mid-August this year. Not being subject to Mr. Smith's censorship, which blotted out the whole story in Rhodesia for another week, they carried reports of pitched battles in which the invading African guerrillas appeared to have achieved local control in certain bush areas near the Wankie Game Reserve. The first clash on August 13 was at Inyantue and was followed by actions involving spotter planes and armoured Alouette helicopters.
A little later, quoting the numbers given by the Rhodesian régime, the report stated:
But South African observers spoke of 200 and some estimated that there might be as many as 2,000 trained men in reserve on the guerrilla side. The Johannesburg magazine 'Scope' assigned a team to the battle area and produced a seven-page report about 'the crackling of rifles and the chatter of machine gun fire' and went on:
'Skirmishes such as this take place almost every day in the Rhodesian bush. And amongst the death notices in the Rhodesian newspapers the words 'killed in action' tell the story of fighting which has not been known for 60 years since the Matabele Rebellion.'
It is fashionable to refer to all those who invade Rhodesian territory as terrorists. It is an emotive word but it does not alter the situation. I suppose that, whenever people engage in irregular warfare against an occupying or alien power, they are regarded, at least at the

outset, as terrorists. Garibaldi must have appeared as a terrorist, at least to the Governments of Naples and the Papal States. There is a very well known terrorist in Dublin, named Eamonn de Valera. I recall that during the war I first heard of Marshal Tito when he was described as a Croatian terrorist. One does not get round the facts simply by using expressions of this kind.
These people may be misguided. They may be ill advised. They may be certain of defeat in present circumstances. But let us recognise that those Africans who have come fighting into Rhodesia are governed by precisely the same motives as were the people of Warsaw in 1944 or the people of Budapest in 1956.
The point I want to make is that, since U.D.I., there is a new situation. There is what amounts to a condition of civil war. These will not be the last attacks of the kind and there is a situation which may well become comparable to what has been happening for several years in the Portuguese territories of Angola and Mozambique, where there has been civil war and where many thousands of Portuguese troops have had to be engaged.
This is a situation of which we cannot just wash our hands. I agree that it is a very serious matter and that everyone should speak with responsibility. I am not saying that we should send forces to occupy Rhodesia tomorrow. But I am saying to the Government that, as the situation has now developed, it would be entirely wrong completely to rule out any question of police action either by this country or by the United Nations.
We must look at this not merely as a local dispute between ourselves and a distant rebellious colony. This is not simply a little local difficulty in Central Africa. We have to view it against the background of world events, particularly in relation to South Africa.
The leaders of all our political parties, including the Conservative Party, have at one time or another spoken of the dangers of a race war. I would like to give one quotation from a statement prepared a year or two ago by the United Nations Group of Experts under the chairmanship of Mrs. Alva Myrdal, of Sweden. It said:
Violence and counter-violence in South Africa are only the local aspects of a much


wider danger. The coming collision must involve the whole of Africa and indeed the world beyond. No African nation can remain aloof. Moreover, a race conflict starting in South Africa must affect race relations elsewhere in the world, and also, in its international repercussions, create a world danger of first magnitude.
It is true that that was written of South Africa, but it obviously applies with no less force to Southern Rhodesia.
If Mr. Smith were allowed to win, can anyone doubt that the whole filthy apparatus of suppression would remain, and would remain indefinitely? The privileged position of a tiny European minority would be enhanced. If that were allowed to happen, the repercussions would be felt, not only in Africa, not only, as I believe, in the United States, but here in our own country. That is why this is a struggle we cannot afford to lose.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The speech to which we have just listened cannot have been designed to improve the chances of a settlement of the dispute between this country and Southern Rhodesia. I do not know whether we have just been listening to the resignation speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ipswich Sir Dingle Foot) but, if it be so, I wish that he had said so, because we should know whether or not that is the case.
I have never been what might be called "middle of the road" in this discussion. I have had strong views, which I have not concealed. Nevertheless, I very much regret that the debate should have taken this sort of turn this evening, because whichever view prevails about what is right and wrong in that country we must all surely want a settlement which is agreed upon by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the prevailing authorities in Rhodesia, and approved by this Parliament. All that the right hon. and learned Gentleman achieved this evening was to show how completely blinkered he is as soon as he delves in to the affairs of Africa. It is a matter of constant astonishment to me how one whose views on affairs in this country are so often liberal and humane should be so intensely selective as soon

as he directs his attention to Africa and to Asia.
I could not recognise from his description the same countries to which I know he was referring. He was describing as a police State.—[Interruption.] Well, we do not necessarily always agree with the laws even in our own country, but what we always try to achieve is that there shall be what we call the rule of law. What we have in Rhodesia and those other countries in Southern Africa to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opprobriously referred is the rule of law. He may or may not like the laws, but they are applied with evenness.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks were addressed to this Order, which continues in force Section 2 of the Act which is the basis of the sanctions, and I suppose that he was arguing that we should approve it more emphatically than we were asked to do by his hon. Friend the Minister of State.
Apart from the unhelpfulness of the right hon. and learned Member's speech, could its logic possibly stand? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we were dealing with a country which was in a state of civil war. I do not know whether he was there in August. I managed to look in when I should have been somewhere else. I have never seen a country less like one at civil war than Rhodesia, or Angola or Mozambique. So far as I was able to gather evidence with my eyes, all the trouble in all three of those territories is injected from outside. It is not the citizens of those countries who are causing the trouble and the fighting. If the sending into another country of terrorists who are not citizens of that country constitutes creating civil war, the right hon. and learned Gentleman uses words in a quite different sense from what I do.
He asked what was the good of reaching an agreement with the present Administration in Rhodesia, while his right hon. Friend is there trying to do that very thing, and he said that any guarantees and promises would be worthless. Could one have a greater travesty of the truth? Why is this unhappy dispute existing between this country and Rhodesia? Why are we being asked tonight to renew for another year these unfortunate and regrettable powers?
We are being asked to do that simply because Mr. Smith and his colleagues would not do what the African Nationalist leaders did—go to Lancaster House or Marlborough House, sign on the dotted line and then go back home and tear it up—because they were too honest and would not do it. Mr. Smith could have got an agreement with the last Administration or with the present Government had he been willing not to bother too much about what it all meant and done it with a nod and a wink.
I shall not widen the debate, but if I were challenged on a suitable occasion I could list one after the other of Commonwealth African Nationalist States which have done just that, and give particulars of what I mean. The whole trouble that we are dealing with tonight arises precisely because the Rhodesians are not made that way. They are British, like us, and they jolly well mean to stand by their word when they give it [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are talking about freedom.

Mr. Bell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman eulogises—virtually canonises —terrorists and then, by an extraordinary glide of argument, says that we cannot deal with the Smith Government, that it is a police State and is using force to keep its people in subjection. I rather gathered from him that with Garibaldi and people like that force was all right, but that it is quite wrong if it is not used in aid of the Left.
Any Government may be described as retaining its authority over a country by force supporting the established law of the country. The Government of this country does. Every Government does. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is quite different out there, however, because it is based on a minority electorate. It was not so long ago that the Government of this country ceased to be based on a minority electorate.
In Rhodesia the Constitution, which we do not recognise, is one which does not mention or in any way deal with colour or race. It simply propounds qualifications based upon education and property, in the same way as the qualification for the vote in this country used to do.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about minority votes. It is not so long ago that the Tory Party was elected on a minority vote. We did not hear much criticism then.

Mr. Bell: I do not quite know where that leads us. I suspect nowhere. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman argues, therefore, that that Government were not a legal Government.

Mr. Orme: I did not say that.

Mr. Bell: If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not argue that, I think that he has thrown away his case over Rhodesia.

Mr. John Lee: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer. Is he saying that the unilateral declaration of independence in no way vitiated such authority as Mr. Smith had, because that seems to be the drift of his argument?

Mr. Bell: That is not the drift of my argument. The hon. Gentleman is not following. I was dealing with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, which was that we should not deal with a régime which depended upon force. I pointed out that all Governments depended upon force and moved on to point out that not all electorates represented a majority of the population.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then spoke about the fantastic censorship in Rhodesia and the whole filthy apparatus of suppression. I wonder whether he and I are talking about the same country. I have attended a debate in the Rhodesian Parliament. It seemed to me that people were remarkably free in what they said about the Government, just as they are here. I was in no ignorance in the middle of August about the troubles which were occurring in Rhodesia because of people sent in from Zambia in the north. I do not know who was in ignorance of them. I met nobody who was. What is this censorship? One can read about almost everything in the newspapers, much more than one could read in this country during the war, when we had censorship.

Mr. Stan Newens: Are not the leaders of the Opposition in Rhodesia in detention? Is not this a very different


state of affairs from that which applies in this country? So much for his comparisons about freedom here and freedom there.

Mr. Bell: That must be the last interjection that I allow, because the interjections have been so ill-informed. The leaders of the Opposition are not in detention in Rhodesia. It is the constant, extraordinary obsession of the Left in this country that any opposition who are constitutional and moderate consist of stooges and that the only people who can claim to speak for the people of the country are the extremists. If the hon. Gentleman ever went to Rhodesia—I do not know if he has ever been there—and talked to the ordinary Africans—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I have been there. The hon. and learned Gentleman is talking a lot of poppy-cock.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair wants to hear the debate.

Mr. Bell: If the hon. Gentleman talked to ordinary Africans in Rhodesia, he would find that they are not followers of Mr. Sithole and Mr. Nkomo. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the hon. and learned Gentleman frightened of, then?"] I am not frightened of anybody. I would welcome an agreement between the two Governments and I would welcome it being put to the people of Rhodesia for their approval, which I am sure they would give. I do not regard this as being in any doubt.
I want to say a few words which I hope will help towards securing a settlement rather than putting sand in the works. What we have somehow to arrive at in Rhodesia is a settlement which will allow members of all communities to live together in harmony. That means essentially the Europeans and the indigenous Africans. I would say this to the right hon. Gentleman especially, but I say it to anyone who is really concerned for the welfare of Africa rather than with fishing there for trouble and controversy. I do not see how multiracialism can ever develop and flourish in a highly charged atmosphere. The great tragedy of Central and Southern Africa is that the temperature has been prematurely and excessively raised by political controversy outside.

Multi-racialism did flourish in Rhodesia, and did so by the spontaneous will of the European people of that country for 40 years. They were never under Britain, and they did this themselves. They were the only country in the world, and they still are, seriously trying to build a multi-racial society. The difficulty which they now face is the high temperature, almost at flash point, of politics in Africa. Anyone who raises the temperature does a disservice to the cause of white and black living together in comity there. I should like to see the temperature lowered.
I do not know whether the Minister of State likes to hear this or not, but this really is the crucial point here. He and those advising him know, if they use the right judgment, that Rhodesia is moderate. The people live there in harmony. They are happy together and there is much mutual affection between the African and the white. What is causing the trouble now is the fact that there has been an illegal declaration of independence, and so an illegal régime exists. Ought this to be the terrible stumbling block that people say it is?
It has been pointed out before, and I repeat, that half the members of the United Nations are ruled by illegal régimes and that no fewer than 20 of those régimes are based on military revolutions which have taken place in the last four years. About 30 of the 100 members of the United Nations are ruled by plainly minority régimes. But we recognise them all, and at once. It has been said, certainly by the Prime Minister, that what distinguishes Rhodesia and makes it necessary to have this Act is the fact that this particular illegal régime is in rebellion against the British Crown Perhaps it is not terribly convincing to refer to 1688 and the American rebellion because that is buried in the pasté

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is very patient, but not as patient as that.

Mr. Bell: I was merely saying that as an aside. I was saying that those are buried in the past. But at this very moment is the illogicality of this situation not becoming inescapable? I will not even refer to Sierra Leone except to say that it was technically a rebellion against the Crown. Would the Minister of State


bear this in mind? What is going on now in Aden is a rebellion against the British Crown—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the whole of British foreign policy on this Order.

Mr. Bell: No, Mr. Speaker, and I would not seek to do that. I am trying to meet what I believe is really the only subsisting point against agreement between Rhodesia and Britain, because I do not believe that the illegal régime point in isolation would really move the British Government. We have always been pragmatic about that. What is said to be different is that this illegal régime is a rebellion against the British Crown. I am pointing out that we are now proposing to transfer power—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must take notice of the Chair. We are debating a specific Order.

Mr. Bell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I hoped that I was doing that. One sometimes has to argue by analogy, and it was solely for the purpose of argument on the Southern Rhodesia Act that I was using the analogy.
I do not want to be unhelpful, and I should not have spoken even for as long as I have tonight if I had not been provoked by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who made a speech which I felt was not helpful. The only point I make—I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is absolutely focussed on what I believe to be the issue here—is that, if there is not this trouble in the case of another rebellion against the British Crown—never mind where—one is driven to the last question: what is it that so distinguishes Rhodesia? Are we not being pursued by shadows here? Have we not got into a vicious circle out of which we do not know how to break?
I realise that the Order had to be brought on tonight. The Act would have run out on the 15th, and the result of the conversations in Salisbury will not be known before that date. I understand, therefore, that the Order had to come before us now and could not wait until after the Salisbury conversations. In a way, this may be turned to advantage. The Secretary of State will come back from Salisbury, he will put pro-

posals before the Government, and the decision will be taken here. If anything said in this debate can help, the time devoted to it will not have been wasted.
I beg the Minister to note this point and transmit it to his right hon. Friend. It is very difficult now to isolate a point which distinguishes the Rhodesian situation from others which we have successfully negotiated. If that be so, then for heaven's sake let us be governed by the fact that Rhodesia is the most moderate régime in Africa—[H0N. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, the most moderate régime in Africa. Let anyone who disagrees name the régime which is more moderate, more democratic, and which gives greater freedom to its subjects. [HON. MEMBERS: "Kenya."] Since this is the truth, and everyone knows it to be, and since there is no further legalistic point which ought to stand in the way of a settlement, I hope that the Secretary of State will have good success in his negotiations, and, when he comes back, as I believe he may, with heads of agreement, he will find good will and understanding among his colleagues, so that this wretched dispute between two branches of the British people will be swiftly ended.

9.54 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: If ever the case was made out for legislation against racial discrimination in this country, it was made tonight by the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). If he does not recognise racial discrimination in Rhodesia—and he obviously does not—it is unlikely that public education or anything that anyone says to him about it will change his mind.
Section 1 of the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965 provides that,
Southern Rhodesia continues to be part of Her Majesty's dominions, and the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom have responsibility and jurisdiction as heretofore for and in respect of it.
It is that part of the Act which the Order continues which is of vital importance.
I, too, was interested in the statement in the Gracious Speech that the Government would continue their efforts to secure a return to legality in Rhodesia.
I was also interested in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, to which


my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) has already referred, in which he said that he hoped to return to a new legality. This devious reference to a new legality has made the whole situation of Southern Rhodesia very difficult. I was one of those concerned about the qualification of Nibmar by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He has said, and he repeated it yesterday, that there would have to be considerable change within Southern Rhodesia before he would be prepared to discuss with the Commonwealth any change in Nibmar. Those changes have not yet been spelt out, and my right hon. Friend's Answer to my Question yesterday was that to do so would be hypothetical, and therefore we could not discuss the matter.
I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs will return with terms of a settlement that we shall discuss, and I hope that I am right. I want to demonstrate tonight why I do not think that it is possible. First, there have already been considerable changes for the worse within Southern Rhodesia in the past two years. The maintenance of law and order there, or the attempt to maintain it, is net by the British Government but by the racialist forces from South Africa.
We have heard a great deal about our being unable to use force, and challenges have been thrown out to hon. Members on this side of the House asking if we would use force. But force is already being used in Southern Rhodesia, and this point is vitally important. Ian Smith holds his position at the moment by the use of force and the threatened continuation of its use, because he holds it against the wishes of the vast majority of his population who are not on the voting register.

Mr. Ronald Bell: rose—

Miss Lestor: Would you mind? You have had a very good go and did not say very much.

Mr. Speaker: Order. 1 am the only person who never has a good go.

Mr. Bell: I wondered on what warrant the hon. Lady said that Mr. Smith held his position against the wishes of three-quarters of the population?

Miss Lestor: I said that it was against the wishes of a large majority. They have never been given the opportunity to say whether they wished Ian Smith to remain in control—that is why I said it.
I was trying to show why I believe that a settlement based on the principles to which we are committed is not possible. The first reason is the considerable changes which have already taken place in Southern Rhodesia. There is the introduction of what has been called the "Death Bill". The Rhodesian Government intend to go against a recommendation of the Constitutional Commission and pass a Bill providing the death penalty for people found in unauthorised possession of arms. When the democratic right of people within a territory to express their point of view is denied, when those who speak for them are in prison and the only avenue left open to them is force, and when the death penalty is then introduced, a situation is created which is maintained by force.
For evidence about this so-called multiracial, liberal society to which the hon. and learned Member for South Bucking. hamshire, South referred. I refer him to a statement recently issued by Mr. Herbert Thompson, deputy leader of the Rhodesian Action Association, and Mr. Govan, independent member of the Rhodesian Legislative Assembly. They pointed out that under the Property Owners (Residential Protection) Bill, which has just been passed—

It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]

Question again proposed.

Miss Lestor: Under that Bill the coloured and Asian communities, who number about 13,000 and 9,000, respectively, will lose their homes, their schools and their hospitals; the Municipal Amendment Act, which has been approved by Parliament, will rob the Asian and coloured communities of their civil liberties by segregation in parks and in all


recreational activities; the Emergency Powers Act; the banning of strikes; the banning of people from gathering together in order to hold a public meeting—all this legislation has been directed against the Africans in Southern Rhodesia. It is that legislation those people came here to protest about and to draw to the attention of those of us who are concerned for them.
All this is not the action of a régime and of a Government concerned with establishing multi-racialism or establishing a situation in which, as the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South said, black and white can live harmoniously together.
I would say that the changes which have taken place in Southern Rhodesia since U.D.I. was declared make it absolutely impossible for the six principles which were drawn up to have any application now at all towards a settlement, because the six principles, which we discussed, can apply only to a situation where apartheid is ruled out. The cannot apply to a situation and to a country which is moving rapidly towards apartheid, and it is exactly that that is happening in Southern Rhodesia. It is moving rapidly towards apartheid, it is moving rapidly towards a police State, because the only way the Government there can maintain their hold is by doing this.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: The hon. Lady has just said that Rhodesia is becoming a police State, and she talks about legislation which might be introduced. Is she aware that the police force which would have to enforce any such legislation is 80 per cent. African and that, therefore, if this legislation were not acceptable to the Africans as a whole, it would be hardly likely that they would enforce it?

Miss Lestor: First of all, I would refer you to the fact that it was your own leader who said—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Miss Lestor: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. What I should have said was that first, I refer the hon. Member to the fact that it was his leader who referred to Rhodesia as being a police State. Secondly, many of the police I am referring to in Southern

Rhodesia hail from South Africa. Incidentally, the colour of the police force involved is not a matter of concern at the moment, and the point I am making is that if any régime is forced to use police forces, be they from South Africa or anywhere else, to uphold a Constitution, this to my mind means it is developing rapidly towards a police State. The hon. Member may or may not agree, but that is the point I am making, and I make it in reply to his intervention. If this is not a police State, I do not know what
is.
Therefore, the situation we are dealing with is a very different one from the situation which existed two years ago when U.D.I. was declared. When the "Tiger" proposals were first drawn up—and, incidentally, they were not a solution I would have accepted as a settlement for Southern Rhodesia—even then we were not dealing with the situation such as it is today, and what is important to remember is that in those "Tiger" proposals we talked in terms of entrenchment clauses. Certain people who supported the "Tiger" proposals—and most hon. Members opposite said that they supported them—said that they should be upheld because they contained entrenchment clauses which would guarantee that the régime would have to adhere to them and carry them out. We had entrenchment clauses in South Africa in 1910 guaranteeing unimpeded progress towards majority rule. We had them in 1923 in Southern Rhodesia guaranteeing that there would be no racial discrimination. Under the 1961 Constitution,we have seen what has been done to political parties and their leaders in Rhodesia. Entrenchment clauses are not worth the paper on which they are printed when one hands over to a régime which is controlled by a minority. That is the lesson which must be learned.
I should have thought that it was obvious to anyone who had anything more than a passing interest in what is taking place that the pattern of South Africa is developing gradually in Rhodesia, and it is racialist South Africa which is helping and backing Rhodesia.
Ultimately, this House will have to face the fact that many people fear that we shall not reach a decent settlement, or even what many people would call a sellout, but that we shall be faced with a


"fizzle-out" of the Rhodesian situation. The fear is that we shall not be able to reach a settlement and that it will go by default.
Although sanctions have been useful, they have not had the desired effect. They will have to be tightened considerably. It is exceedingly important that, in discussing this Order, we draw the attention of the Government to the fact that sanctions must be strengthened and that we must think much more along the lines of applying sanctions in terms of communications and passports, as well as strengthening the existing economic sanctions, If that does not take place, the sanctions will continue to fail to bring down the Smith régime.
We must re-examine the commitment not to use force and that we would not risk confrontation with South Africa. I doubt if South Africa would welcome a confrontation with Great Britain, any more than we should. It would be interesting to hear if any study has been made of the implications of taking South Africa to task a little more severely about her attitude to sanctions. A commitment not to use force puts the British Government in a difficult position, and exactly the same applies to the statement about avoiding a confrontation with South Africa.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): If the hon. Lady will allow me—

Miss Lestor: You would be the last one—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must address her remarks to the Chair. Is she giving way to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings)?

Miss Lestor: Yes.

Mr. Hastings: Such a study has been made by the Carnegie Institute on behalf of the United Nations. Amongst other things, it estimates that there would be 7,000 dead in the initial assault.

Miss Lestor: I did not talk about an initial assault. Neither did I talk about using force against South Africa. I said

that I doubted very much whether South Africa was any keener on a confrontation with Britain than we should be, and it would be interesting to know what studies have been made of this before we put ourselves in the position of removing one of the very important sanctions which exist.
One of the difficulties about the policy of sanctions has been that we have been limited by the Government's desire to avoid the use of force and to avoid a confrontation with South Africa. Because of that, the effectiveness of our policy has been limited. That is why the Government should look again at both these points, as well as at the possibility of strengthening sanctions and applying them far more effectively than we have so far.
Quite understandably, and I can accept this, there is very grave apprehension by everybody about the possibilities of war or of racialism and racial war breaking out as a result of this situation. I also accept that because of mistakes made in the beginning it is a very difficult situation. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich has pointed out, if, by trying to avoid the use of force, the use of a military presence will lead the way for a racialist war and racial antagonisms in the future, which is my fear, one has to face the situation now, because we have no right to pass this on to our children. Somebody at some stage must face racialism and face what is hapnening in Rhodesia and in South Africa.
It is in these terms that I suggest that the British Government should look again at the whole policy of sanctions to see if it cannot be strengthened and review some of the statements that they have already made on this situation. At the moment Southern Rhodesia is controlled by a person who is hell bent on developing an apartheid society. If that happens and Britain abdicates, or is seen to abdicate, her responsibilities to the black Africans, I can see a situation developing where many of us will regret that firmer measures were not taken at the beginning to avoid a racialist war breaking out.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: The House listened with great respect to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) because, apart from being right hon. and learned, he has only just resigned from the Government. Therefore, he might be supposed to have been speaking with an unusual sense of responsibility. However, it is difficult to comment on his speech without deciding in what context it was made. I had supposed—indeed, I thought the whole Government had supposed; certainly the Prime Minister and the Minister of State —that the Prime Minister now was conducting, through his chosen Minister, a genuine and determined attempt to reach an agreed settlement with the Rhodesian Government. If, which I do not suppose, that attempt is in fact bogus and no real attempt is being made to reach agreement, then the speech made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, though I would not agree with it, would do no particular harm. On the other hand, if the attempt being made is genuine, that speech, which he delivered upon the very day his ex-colleague is at Salisbury spending four hours negotiating with Mr. Smith, is irresponsible and unpatriotic. If one accepts the word of the Prime Minister that genuine negotiations are taking place, there is no conceivable doubt that it was a very wrong speech to have made on this day.
Turning to the nature of the speech, the right hon. and learned Gentleman discussed African conditions, as I am afraid many people do, in the context of Europe. He, as many of us do, regretted such things as arbitrary arrest and detention without trial. I will not run through the whole list. Incidentally, he grossly exaggerated them. I will not deny the substance of what he said, that police powers exceed those in Great Britain and a man can be arrested and detained without trial; but he forgets that those things are true of every State in Africa from The Cape to Cairo and from Liberia to Somaliland. I defy him to mention a single State in which it is not possible to arrest a man without trial. It is pointless to imagine that in Rhodesia one can get a set of circumstances which exists nowhere else on the African Continent.

Mr. David Winnick: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that what distinguishes South African and Rhodesia from any other country on the African continent is that it is in these two countries that people are penalised and discriminated against purely and simply because of the colour of their skin?

Mr. King: I do not accept that, but perhaps I might be allowed to develop my argument and I shall deal with it in due course.
The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich could have been made almost word for word, and I would have enjoyed making it, about any one of many many nations who are members of the United Nations. There is nothing constructive about mere abuse. I concede willingly and cheerfully that the Government of Rhodesia are weak or bad. I concede that 18 other governments, and one could increase the number to almost anything and if one likes include the British Government, are bad. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not follow through his own logic. Having arrived at that rather obvious conclusion, he never sought to tell us what we were to do about it, and this is the whole point of the debate which we ought to be having tonight.
I come now to what we ought to be discussing, this Order which seeks to enable Her Majesty to impose "prohibitions and restrictions" of various kinds. I dislike prohibitions and restrictions. I think that they are already too much a part of Government philosophy. I could not help observing a not widely dissimilar phrase in the Gracious Speech, which sought a "return" to constitutional rule, which sought a going backwards, which sought to put the clock back. A "return" is almost the classical definition of reaction. This is why I prefer the phraseology of my right hon. Friend, who is looking forward instead of looking backwards.
It is almost six weeks since I was in Beira, a port which is very relevant to this debate. I remember standing there and surveying the end of the pipeline which we all know has been closed under the measures we are debating. I can remember seeing that pipeline surrounded by a two inch thick chain with a padlock


on the end. It seemed to be a symbol of what I call chain and padlock politics. Whatever view people may take, let no one forget that that chain and padlock was a symbol of the deprivation of a large part of Central Africa of the oil which alone can fertilise its economy, which alone can raise the standard of living of the African. Whatever view one takes, there is no doubt that the chain and padlock mentality is bringing about a lowering of educational standards in Africa, a lowering in feeding standards there, and doing harm to the African Rhodesians. Whatever view one may take, one must surely regret an act which is inevitably harsh, even though one may think that for other reasons it is justified.
I must, for a few moments, refer to the Prime Minister who, even for him, has an unusual record of change of mind in this matter. It is only a short time since he said that on the best advice he had received the sanctions would be effective in weeks rather than months. [Interruption.] I am not surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like that quotation. Presumably that advice was given to him by civil servants. It is not within the traditions of the House to inquire which civil servant or what has happened to him. But it is significant that since then almost all the civil servants at the Rhodesia desk have been changed. It is significant when I note that it is only six weeks since the Prime Minister himself—I was in Africa at the time and it was headline news in every African newspaper—on a "Panorama" programme said that sanctions have not been successful. It is a peculiar circumstance which brings the Government—

Mr. George Thomas: I am sure that the hon. Member will not want to mislead the House. He should know that what the Prime Minister said was that sanctions had not yet achieved the political aim to which they were directed. He did not say that they had failed; he said that they had not as yet succeeded.

Mr. King: What I said I mentally put in inverted commas, when I said that the Prime Minister had said that sanctions "had not been successful". I shall come to the political point shortly.
It seems a strange thing to ask the House to renew something which, on the

confession of the Prime Minister, has not been an outstanding success. Perhaps the Minister will accept that phrase.

Mr. Thomas: Not yet.

Mr. King: Against that background I return to Rhodesia itself. What has been the effect of the sanctions which the Government now seek to renew? I have done my best to find out factually. First, let us look at the ground level. Let us go to Salisbury and ask any ordinary housewife of what she has been deprived. I can assure the House—and I know that this is Government information—that the effect on the average European in Rhodesia has been all but nil. This is immensely important, because the effect of the sanctions is desired to be political.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the hon. Member realise that The Times in an editorial today asserts that the Rhodesian illegal régime is only—and this is with the help of South Africa—just keeping its nose above water?

Mr. King: I was coming to that very point. I took first the effect of the sanctions on the ordinary housewife, and pointed out that it was nil. I said to a housewife in Salisbury who was opposed to Mr. Smith, "Tell me honestly—in your daily shopping and daily life, can you think of anything which you are not now able to get that you used to be able to get?" The reply was, "Yes, I can. I cannot get smoked salmon any more."That was the only thing that she could quote.
Now I come to the City club, if I may so describe it, which the hon. Member probably has in mind—the more sophisticated level of society, which includes economists and bankers. I have asked their view and I can tell the House what it is. I do not think that the Government will quarrel with what I say. The effect has been that to a large extent the Rhodesian economy is surviving. It has suffered, in the sense that whereas but for sanctions the Rhodesian economy would probably have advanced by as much as 15 per cent., that advance has been held back. It has been held about static.
Rhodesia has other difficulties, especially with tobacco. We know that the crop is largely unsold. What we have done by


sanctions is simply to hold Rhodesia's economy at about the point—we may argue about different commodities—at which it previously was.
We should bear in mind that the average income of the Rhodesian European is much higher than the average income of the Briton or of the South African. Take other tests. The Rhodesian £ is not in danger, but the British £ is. On balance of payments, Rhodesia has a surplus, but Britain has not. Those statistics should bring hon. Gentlemen opposite away from the emotional aspect which most have so far stressed. We are trying to do something which is not successful: that is the practical point—

Mr. Ben Whitaker: On this point about the ineffectualness of sanctions, there is no dispute on either side, but is the hon. Gentleman's deduction that we should make them more effective and take further measures or that we should abdicate our principles?

Mr. King: I need hardly tell the hon. Gentleman that that is the point at which I will arrive, but I will make my argument in my own way.
I was also in Lisbon during the Recess —[Laughter.]—and I had one hour with the Portuguese Foreign Secretary. [Laughter.] The noise which I hear emphasises my belief that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want to hear this, but I am anxious that they should; and they will, because I am entitled to say it. I had one hour with the Portuguese Foreign Secretary and I do not think he will mind my telling the House some of what he said.
He said, as he was entitled to do, that he had expressed no public view of our Rhodesian difficulties, but added, "You, the British, have for long proclaimed the great issue of freedom of the seas but have put a cruiser opposite a Portuguese port and have stopped oil using a Portuguese railway. You have cost the Portuguese about £12 million a year". [Laughter.]—hon. Gentlemen should not laugh too soon, because they will not like what is coming.
He said: "I would not resent that particularly if it were a part of any moral crusade or a significant step towards depriving Rhodesia of the oil

which Britain apparently wishes to deprive her of. But now see what has happened. Lourenco Marques, which is a thriving harbour, is full of the ships of the major trading nations of the world, with British bottoms wearing British flags and ships delivering British oil"— he spoke to me as representing, if not the Government, at least Britain—"which you well know reaches Rhodesia. This is not part of a moral crusade. What you are doing is taking away Portuguese trade and pinching it yourself". That is not wholly incorrect—

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the ship to which he referred is there with the authority of the United Nations? Perhaps he will tell us what attitude he adopted during these cosy conversations with this Portuguese gentleman. Did he support the decision taken by this House and by the United Nations, or was he there to assist the illegal régime, the enemies of Her Majesty's Government, in Rhodesia?

Mr. King: I was there with the single aim, which I hope will appeal to the hon. Gentleman also, of learning the truth. That is the truth. I report it to the House.

Mr. Michael Foot: rose—

Mr. King: I have given way three times already.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Foot: Since the hon. Member has given us a remarkable account of this conversation, will he say how he responded to that statement by the Portuguese Minister?

Mr. King: I responded to it with very great regret. If it is true, it is something of which I am a little ashamed, as I think the whole House should be ashamed.

Mr. John Lee: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) has not given way.

Mr. King: The figures of the shipping involved are likely to be revealed to the United Nations by Portugal. If the hon. Member wants me to go further, I will


say that when I was in Beira and other ports I sought to check the figures with the consular authorities and my impression was that they were accurate.

Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Member is making a very serious statement. If I am fortunate enough, Mr. Speaker, to have your leave and that of the House, I shall later supply the hon. Member with figures which will throw the lie in the teeth of people who say that British ships are carrying the oil to which he is referring.

Mr. King: I am bewildered by that statement. If the hon. Member is seeking to show that British ships are not in Lourenco Marques, I would say that the evidence of my own eyes would show that any such statement would be inaccurate and incorrect. I shall look forward with interest to hear what he says.
May I go a little wider and consider the whole effect of what is going on in Central Africa. Portugal, Portuguese Africa, South Africa and Southern Africa, the whole of Africa south of the Zambesi, used to be one of the best markets for British exports. That market is decaying. If hon. Members, for example, go to Mocamedes they will see a £250 million plant being built by Krupps of Germany. If they go to Cabinda they will see one of the greatest oil strikes in Africa, which in two years may well be sufficient to supply the whole of Southern Africa—and the capital is wholly Americansupplied. We are losing out to an extraordinary degree. I was proud to see the Benguela Railway—I do not know how many hon. Members know it—which was founded by Sir Robert Williams, who gave his name to Sir Robert Williamstown. Many years ago he went out there, as many did in those days and by their efforts built the enterprises there. If hon. Members go there they will see his memorial in iron—and in the sheds they will see railway engines and machine tools still bearing the label "Birmingham, Crewe, Manchester, Leeds". I saw them there.
The Portuguese Minister also told me that Portugal is now reacting, as most of Southern Africa is reacting, in such a way that British exports will suffer to a degree which I find it hard to accept. These are wounds which are self-inflicted,

and that is the practical point which it behoves the House to consider, whatever the theoretical aspects may be.
I turn, as the hon. Member asked me to do, to the political effects within Rhodesia itself. Rhodesia has a right-wing Government. Let us concede that at the beginning. I will go further and say that it has moved further to the right in the last 12 months. I fully bear out what was said by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). Indeed I thought that much of her speech was quite correct, and I accept a lot of it. It is certainly true that there is a strong movement to the right in Rhodesia. I regret it as much as she does. The difference between us lies perhaps in our explanations of how it arose. When hon. Members opposite talk as if all Rhodesians were Fascists, will they bear in mind that it is not many years since Southern Rhodesia elected as its Prime Minister Mr. Garfield Todd? I do not think that hon. Members opposite regard him as other than holding views acceptable to them. Therefore, that concedes that there was at any rate a time when Rhodesians genuinely were seeking the multi-racial State many of us argued for and that there was a Rhodesia which was almost acceptable to Great Britain.
What has happened? The break-up of the Federation has complicated the issue. There have been successively Garfield Todd, Welensky, Winston Field and now Ian Smith. At every stage the country has moved further and further to the right. I concede that. It has moved further and further to the right in exact relation as the pressure from Whitehall has increased. The greater the degree of pressure from Whitehall the further to the right Rhodesia has moved. It may yet go even to the right of Mr. Smith.
This is the whole point of the argument, and I say to hon. Members opposite who feel about this deeply, as I do, that it is not so much a question of which Government we seek but that they themselves are driving Rhodesia into the arms of South Africa. Indeed, some of the horrors which, with some exaggeration, the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich sought to describe, are in my view largely the fault of British policy. This is not a strange thing. One does not need to be skilled in history or


politics to see it. Looking back over the last century at almost any country so placed, one finds that external pressures will always solidify the régime one wants to overthrow. That is a lesson for us all.
Hon. Members opposite who hold some of the views which have been expressed, typically, by the hon. Lady and, to some extent, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, have not grasped what has taken place. They still seem to think that Britain either does control or can control Africa. This is not so. We are withdrawing or have withdrawn from African soil every British base and every British soldier. We are on that continent now in a position of all but powerlessness. Can anyone really imagine that, in these circumstances, having no military forces available, faced with sanctions which have all but failed, Whitehall can still dictate events in Salisbury?

Mr. John Lee: If that is so, then the hon. Gentleman has advanced the best possible argument for the use of force, including the United Nations and including, if necessary, the Red Army in blue berets.

Mr. King: I leave the Minister of State to deal with that one. My mind now is on the negotiations. Just as Rhodesia has moved to the right, so something else has happened in the last two years of which hon. Members should take account. I remember saying a long time ago—and I have no pleasure in having been proved right—that time would not be on our side.
When the Prime Minister faced Mr. Smith in the admiral's day cabin of H.M.S. "Tiger", he had something with which to bargain. He was able to say to Mr. Smith, "Either you agree or else you have mandatory sanctions imposed by the United Nations cast upon you." That had a powerful influence on Mr. Smith. Our Prime Minister had then a bargaining weapon which carried force. Now he has shot his gun. There is no ammunition left in it. So has our bargaining position throughout the last three years been progressively weakened.
I wish the Commonwealth Secretary the best of luck in his negotiations, but I would not want to be him because he has nothing to negotiate with. Aneurin

Bevan referred to going naked into the council chamber. That is the position into which the policy of the last two or three years has been rapidly forcing us, and I say particularly to the Minister of State, who has some responsibility here, that that position is making the task of the office he represents much more difficult.
Much has been said about censorship on television in Rhodesia. I went on Rhodesian television—it is even possible that the hon. Gentleman saw something of what I then said. I urged Mr. Ian Smith and all Rhodesians to do their uttermost to meet the points put forward by Her Majesty's Government. I told them on Rhodesian television that I thought their policy was unwise and that history would show them that. And let me add, in the light of what has been said about censorship, that what I said was broadcast without difficulty and that something similar was printed in the Rhodesian Herald. I must add that if a Rhodesian Member of Parliament or any other Rhodesian of authority were to seek to put the Rhodesian point of view on British television I do not think that he would succeed.
It is all too easy for the pot to call the kettle black. That is why in Rhodesia every bit of influence I had was used to try to make them see the folly of their ways and to concede to Britain as I hope that Britain will concede to them, because I am quite certain that if we do not reach agreement in the next few days—and I am not optimistic —there can be nothing but unhappiness for all concerned.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I wish that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) had spoken consistently with the wisdom which he evidently believes he offered to the population of Rhodesia during his television interview there. As it is, his speech will be notable in retrospect for its inconsistencies and contradictions.
I am convinced that in historical perspective the greatest issue facing the Government today is the issue of Rhodesia. I know that there is a great deal of feeling in the House about other affairs at home and abroad—a great deal of passion is released over the vital international conflict in Vietnam—but the


point that every hon. Member should remember and recognise is that the injustices and conflicts in Rhodesia are our direct responsibility.
Every time we hear more evidence of the police State, every time we hear of Europeans or of Africans being imprisoned without proper trial, every time we hear of the interference with free education as we understand it in Britain at the secondary or the university level, every time we hear of the censorship of the Press, it is the responsibility of Members of this House.
The Government's first responsibility is to stop presenting the issue as a sophisticated game of diplomatic chess between the Rhodesian Administration and the British Government, and to spell out to the British people what the Smith régime means in injustice, and exactly what we are responsible for.
If we can learn one lesson from history it is the inevitability, in any situation such as that in Rhodesia, that once a majority of the population in any country demands, albeit through articulate minority leadership, a full part in the political life of the community, it is only a matter of time before it achieves that right; and that, almost without exception, where resistance to change has been most obstinate, the form of change when it has finally come has been most violent. All of us who really care that the citizens of Rhodesia who happen to be European should have a certain stake in the future of that country must face up to the inevitability of our responsibility at this juncture to bring the Smith régime to task.
Looking at this in perspective, we have also to recognise that we are dealing not only with the internal political problems of Rhodesia, because Rhodesia represents the nerve centre of the whole racial conflict in the international community. If, when the chips are down, it is seen that we have failed the majority of that country simply because of their racial origins, the world community will have taken one more and, perhaps, a fatal step towards the final breach of confidence between the races which could lead us to an era in international affairs which would make any recent crisis seem fairly insignificant by comparison.
If I indict the Opposition for one thing, it is for their recently emphasised stupidity and naïvety in supposing that a just settlement is now possible on the basis of the six principles alone. Recent legislation in Rhodesia such as the Property Owners Residential Protection Bill or the Municipal Amendment Bill should have dispelled that belief for all time. None of us can have any confidence that any agreement made with the present régime could ensure majority rule at some future date. The only basis for a just and lasting settlement in Nibmar, and Nibmar itself could become a delaying tactic unless we are prepared to face our responsibility here for some form of direct rule on the road to majority rule.
A year ago Britain, which had always insisted that this was essentially a British problem, sought international backing through the United Nations for achieving what she had been unable to achieve alone. We would never be forgiven in history if it became evident that our real motivation for bringing in the international community to back us in our endeavour was that we had become convinced of our own impotence and were determined to share the blame for failure with the international community. That would be cynicism in its most extreme form.
To make the international action effective, we have to recognise our own key part in making the policies resulting from that international action effective. I believe that there are certain immediate steps which we can take. First, we must be prepared to police sanctions effectively. Sanctions without proper means of enforcement are an empty and fairly irrelevant gesture. That means that we must be prepared to extend the blockade, if necessary, to Lourenço Marques. We must be prepared to take any other—

Mr. Evelyn King: I do not think that the hon. Member knows the maritime difficulties of Lourenço Marques and Beira. It is possible to police Beira because any ship seeking to use Beira has to come out into the open sea. It is impossible to police Lourenço Marques because a ship can creep out within territorial waters. Therefore, what the hon. Member suggests is impossible.

Mr. Judd: I was suggesting that together with the international community as a whole, we must be prepared


to take naval action, if necessary to extend the blockade to all ports via which it is at present being evaded. We must also be prepared to take any other necessary action to block transport routes to and from Rhodesia. We must also look to the situation in our own country. The Government have repeatedly told us that they will not hesitate to prosecute those found contravening the sanctions regulations, but there is abundant evidence of all sorts of means by which British business men are evading the legislation. This leads us to the conclusion that if necessary, the law must be strengthened and amended to prevent such evasions.
We must also seriously consider the possibility of breaking postal and telegraphic communications and we must also look, because we have to bring the point home emphatically, at the possibility of confiscating passports issued by the illegal régime. If we play our part in strengthening international action in this way, we shall not only be convincing the international community that we mean business, thereby seeing more decisive action by the other powers involved, but we shall also be encouraging the liberal opposition to the Smith régime which exists amongst all races within Rhodesia itself—an opposition which feels impotent unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the outside world, led by us, means business.
Also if we are trying to strengthen an international sense of responsibility, we should be investigating means by which the supervision of sanctions could be internationalised, with effective international means of investigation to follow up any breach of sanctions as they stand.
My last point is this. During the recent debates on the Gracious Speech we heard quite a few references to the disillusionment of the British public with politics in Britain. I should like to remind the House of a very powerful, moving in some ways, broadcast made to the nation on 11th November, 1965, by the Prime Minister. In that broadcast he said:
At this anxious time I hope that no one in Rhodesia will feel that Britain has forgotten them or that we are prepared to yield up the trusteeship which is ours—trusteeship for the welfare of all the peoples of Rhodesia. Whatever the cost to us, we shall honour that

trusteeship, until we can bring the people of Rhodesia, under God, once again, back to their true allegiance, back to the rule of law, and forward to their true destiny in the family of nations.
Quite apart from the issues at stake in Rhodesia itself, if we are ever seen in history to have failed the majority of that country, political integrity in Britain will have suffered a blow which it will be impossible to repair.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The majority of the views which have been expressed from the back benches opposite are based sincerely on the view that the African majority in Rhodesia is strongly opposed to the present de facto Government of Rhodesia—so opposed that it is prepared to take all action, including force, to overthrow the Government. I hope that during my speech I shall be able to illustrate from personal knowledge extending over 10 years, and knowledge supported by others of my hon. Friends who have been to Rhodesia, that that is not a fact and that many Africans acquiesce in the Smith Government, and I shall be quoting HANSARD soon to prove this point.
I hope, however, that the Minister of State will realise that all the speeches that we have heard so far from his back benches seem to be deliberately designed to sabotage the efforts of his right hon. Friend in Salisbury today.
What alternative are we offered to a settlement? Many hon. Members opposite do not want a settlement. What alternative do they offer us? They offer us force, war. They have said so in the House tonight. They realise that it would not be war with Rhodesia but war with 4 million whites in Southern Africa and many million blacks who would support them. They realise very well that the Governments of the United States, Great Britain and France have made it quite clear that not only are they not going to be involved in a war but they are not going to be involved in a trade war. Hon. Members opposite know that they are asking for something that they are not going to get, and that perhaps explains the violence of their speeches.
I want to address myself to the Act. Under this Act we can do almost anything. We can alter the constitution of


Rhodesia. We can make instruments. We can impose prohibitions. Incidentally, when my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked a little time back whether the Act would have remained in force if the interim Government proposed a year ago aboard H.M.S. "Tiger" had come into effect, he received the answer "Yes". Perhaps that is one explanation why the interim Government was not accepted by Mr. Smith's Government.
Broadly speaking, there are three schools of thought in regard to the Act and the Order which continues it for another year. The first school, to which I belong, holds that sanctions are immoral. I say that because sanctions affect the weaker and poorer sections of the community. I have been to Rhodesia fairly frequently. I came back only a few weeks ago, even after my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King). Many people told me of charities which had had their funds blocked by the British Government. There are many African farm schemes whose funds have been blocked and various other charities which are not allowed to send their money to Rhodesia, even though, in some cases, those charities exist purely to help the African people.
Moreover, the Africans are the people who are suffering from sanctions. I know what the average African view is. I took as broad a cross-section of African opinion as I could. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh."] Yes, I know more Africans personally than any hon. Member opposite who has spoken, with the possible exception of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I have known them for many years. What the Africans, including African Members of Parliament, said to me was, "We want a settlement. We want it because there is growing unemployment among our people. It is not affecting the whites nearly so much; it is affecting our people. We want a settlement because the 8,000 secondary school leavers each year will not have jobs to go to, and they will create trouble. We want a settlement for all these reasons, and also because we believe that a continuation of the dispute will push our Government more and more towards a South African type of racial discrimination and racial legislation", and they

cited one or two instances such as have been referred to in the House tonight.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman says that he consulted African opinion in Rhodesia. Did he consult the African nationalists who are at this moment imprisoned by the régime and who represent the vast majority of the Africans in Rhodesia?

Mr. Wall: I do not believe that they represent the vast majority of Africans. No one accepts that they do. They were never elected by the Africans. The hon. Gentleman calls the chiefs stooges, paid stooges of the Government. Presumably he even calls stooges the Africans who were elected by Africans to represent them in Parliament. Yet these are the people who represent their people far more than those who are detained in Rhodesia today.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Would it not be easy to put it to the test by allowing votes to Africans?

Mr. Wall: If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about Rhodesia, he would know that these people are detained because they broke the law by creating violence and intimidation. This is one of the chief reasons why the African people today acquiesce in Mr. Smith's Government, because they have stopped this intimidation. Three years ago, I found it very difficult to visit the African townships because there was, virtually, a civil war between Z.A.N.U. and Z.A.P.U. Nowadays, one can walk in the African townships perfectly safely and happily, because, whatever else they have done, the Smith Government have restored law and order in the urban African townships.
All the interruptions are taking me away from the theme of my speech. I have said that there are three schools of thought about the Order. The first believes that it is wrong for the reasons I have given. I believe that it is wrong for another reason—I think that I have the support of many of my hon. Friends here—because it is based on wrong psychology. The people who are ruling Rhodesia today, rightly or wrongly—the minority, if one cares to put it like that—are of British or Afrikaner stock, two nationalities who will react immediately against threats and against pressure. All


that the Orders have succeeded in doing so far is even further to unite the people —black and white behind their government.
The second school of thought believes that sanctions under the Order will condition the Rhodesian Government towards a compromise. I think that quite a number of my hon. Friends believe this and that that is why they supported sanctions at the beginning. I hope that this is true, and I believe that it is. I believe that the Rhodesian Government and the Rhodesian leaders want an agreement, but they are not prepared to give up their independence to get it.
The third school of thought consists of those who believed two years ago—and to judge from the speeches tonight they still believe it—that sanctions will cause so much unemployment that it will lead to unrest in the African areas, that rebellion will be provoked, assisted by the freedom fighters so beloved by the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot), that there will be civil war and that Mr. Smith will be brought down in bloodshed. That is what I believe some hon. Members opposite thought would happen two years ago. I think they now know that they are crying for the moon and that it will not happen. But judging by tonight's speeches some still want it to happen.
I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has returned, because I want to tell him that I was in Rhodesia when he made his broadcast after resigning from the Government. Nothing that has happened here in the past two years aroused more fury in Rhodesia than his broadcast equating the guerrilla fighters with the French Maquis in their fight against the Nazi Germans. It aroused fury not only among Europeans but among Africans. It did more than anything else to make impossible a settlement, which I want, though I do not think that he wants one. Perhaps that is why he said it.
The guerrilla fighters have been condemned by responsible African leaders. In the Rhodesian Parliament, on 30th August, Mr. Behane said:
It is very well known to this House, and indeed to the country at large that I have always stood firmly against terrorism and that I always do … I believe that what is being done by our Forces in that part of the country

is worth all the praise that this House can give … Apart from the security of the whole country these dedicated men"—
that is not the freedom fighters but the Rhodesian security forces—
are fighting to preserve peace among the people living in western Matabeleland,…

Mr. Faulds: The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) keeps suggesting that somehow or other he has special interests in and knowledge of Southern Rhodesia that give him the right to say that the Africans there are behind Mr. Smith. I probably know Southern Rhodesia rather better than he does. How can he possibly sustain that argument when he goes out to Southern Rhodesia on conducted tours run by Mr. Smith's Government and only meets Africans whom Mr. Smith wants him to meet? I have met many more Africans who are totally opposed to Mr. Smith's Government. These are the men—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The hon. Member must not make a speech while the hon. Member for Haltemprice holds the floor.

Mr. Wall: If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman may be able to make his long and inaccurate speech. In the short time he has spoken so far he has made a number of inaccurate statements. I was not on a conducted tour. I paid my own fare to Rhodesia and back. I did not see a single African nominated by the Government for me to see; I saw people I know and have known for many years—businessmen and other African leaders.

Hon. Members: Stooges.

Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentlemen's intervention was even more foolish than usual, because I was quoting the words of an African Member of Parliament, elected by Africans—

Hon. Members: Stooges.

Mr. Wall: If the hon. Members will keep quiet for a moment I shall quote from the speech of another African Member of Parliament, Mr. Rubatika—

Hon. Members: Another stooge.

Mr. Wall: Mr. Rubatika said on 30th August:
We expect Britain, since it says it has responsibility over us up to date, to act as the


Prime Minister stated, by exercising his influence on. Zambia to stop terrorism and at least to register a protest on behalf of the African people whom it is stating it is championing. We do not want any loss of blood.
That is, I believe, the true view of the African people, whose view is not that expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.
I went to have as close a look as possible at those operations. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will at least know they were started by a band of 80 men who had been trained in Algeria; they were well trained, equipped and led. When they crossed the frontier a communiqué was issued in Lusaka by Mr. J. R. D. Chikerema of Z.A.P.U. and Mr. O. R. Tambo of the African National Congress. I have a copy of it in my hands. This communiqué starts off:
Furious fighing has been and is taking place in various parts of Southern Rhodesia.
It goes on:
Both the Rhodesian and the South African regimes have admitted that South African Freedom Fighters belonging to the African National Congress have been involved in these courageous battles, fighting their way to strike at the Boers themselves in South Africa.
That was the official communiqué issued by the leaders of those parties, and it said this was a military operation designed to strike at the South Africans in northern Transvaal.
This seems to me the whole justification of South Africans wanting to take their share in this operation, to see that those "freedom fighters" do not come within their own frontier. I may say that the Rhodesian security forces have been successful in so doing, because all except six of those 80 have been picked up and put in the bag. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, they had to retire to the Wankie Game Reserve to get away from the villages because every African who saw them immediately reported them to the security forces. All but six have been accounted for, and some have surrendered to the Botswana police and have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment for bearing arms in their country. These terrorist incursions have been condemned by African leaders in Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho and Malawi. But all of

these people, of course, are stooges in the eyes of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Sanctions have been affecting Rhodesia. I quite agree that they have. In industry they have pretty well stopped the car assembly trade. So when I went to the agricultural show in Bulawayo the only cars I saw there on show were Japanese cars. There were plenty of them. Unfortunately, they proved cheaper than and almost as good as British cars, and our car trade may lose this market by the time this dispute has been settled.
The Rhodesians have had to start up indigenous industries and now manufacture many goods that they used to import from us. Owing to the exchange control there is now a good deal of liquid money which has caused a boom in house building and wages are somewhat higher than they are in South Africa, and that is one of the reasons so few Europeans move to South Africa.
On agriculture, sanctions have had some effect. The farmers have not sold all their tobacco crop, and what they have sold has not gone at maximum prices, but it is not the growers who are taking the knock but the Government, because the Government have paid them a fixed price which gives them just a margin of profit. So the growers themselves have not had too bad a knock so far as the Government have had to absorb the difference.
Of course, what has happened is that the tobacco growers have diversified. I can tell the House of the experience of a friend of mine who had a tobacco farm somewhere near Norton. He told me that instead of being 100 per cent. in tobacco he was now 50 per cent. in beef. His financial reward is a little less, but there is not all that difference. If the present talks fail, he will go 100 per cent. beef. He told me that it would probably mean a little less profit, but his labour force would be cut from 60 to six. One can see who will be affected by the sanctions. They will affect the Africans, much less the Europeans. I accept what the Minister of State has said so often. Sanctions are having some effect, I agree. From his point of view, they are having a slight plus effect, taking into account purely industry and agriculture. But has he considered the other effects of sanctions on the morale of the people?
I am sorry to have to say so, but I found a great difference when I visited Rhodesia in September of this year, compared with my visit in June of last year. A lot of the business community who opposed the Rhodesia Front and U.D.I. are now beginning to favour the Smith Government. The man in the street, particularly the artisan and younger man, is convinced that Rhodesia has won the battle of sanctions and has beaten Britain. They are wrong, of course, but the people think that. As a result, the whole country has swung to the right, and the psychology of sanctions has created the completely opposite impression to that which Her Majesty's Government wanted. The people believe that they have won and that sanctions cannot beat the Smith Government. They can make life unpleasant, and, above all, they can damage permanently British relations with the whole of Southern Africa, which is an area that is of vital importance to Britain today.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite made a great fuss yesterday about the economic situation of this country. They know—and, if they do not, the Government do—that South Africa today is Britain's second best customer and is in a position to put a great deal of pressure on Mr. Smith and on our own Prime Minister. Since the closing of the Suez Canal, over a thousand British ships have been bunkered in South African ports. If that came to an end, the unemployment which already we are likely to face this winter could be doubled.

Mr. Judd: This economic relationship is a two-way affair, and we are in a position to bring a good deal of influence to bear on South Africa.

Mr. Wall: I agree it is two-way, and even if the hon. Gentleman himself became Prime Minister tomorrow I do not believe that he could reverse the facts of life. Britain and South Africa are linked together by trade, whether hon. Gentlemen opposite like it or not and this link would take years to break.
We on this side of the House, and certainly the Government Front Bench, devoutly want a settlement. As one who knows most of the politicians of all parties in Rhodesia pretty well, I believe that, though the man in the street there thinks that they have won the battle, the leaders

in Rhodesia almost unanimously want a settlement. They realise that this is the last chance, but they are determined on a settlement on what they as well as we would regard as honourable terms.
Time is getting short. Once the Rhodesia Constitutional Commission has reported, not even Mr. Smith will be able to reverse Rhodesia's progress in the direction charted by the Commission. Hon. Gentlemen must not think that the Constitutional Commission will result in an anti-African constitution. After all, it is composed of three white men and two black men—

Mr. Faulds: Stooges.

Mr. Wall: Why is it that to hon. Gentlemen opposite any African who works with white men is automatically accused of being a stooge?

Mr. Whitaker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wall: No. I believe that the Rhodesians are considerably stronger than they were last year, and I was frightened that they might have put up their price for a settlement. Having been there my fear is at rest as I believe that they genuinely want a settlement, and I very much hope that the British Government do, too.
I believe that a settlement can be reached on the lines outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). First, let us agree, broadly speaking, on the "Tiger" Constitution. Then let us send out a Royal Commission. I think that it will result in a large majority of "Yeses", and that the Rhodesians will accept the "Tiger" Constitution as the only one on which they can come to agreement with Britain. After that, a formula for a return to legality becomes an easy exercise, a general election is held, and the independence of Rhodesia is recognised by the world.
What is the alternative to settlement on the lines that I have suggested, a settlement that I believe Her Majesty's Government want? The alternative is not Utopia. It is not the future that hon. Gentlemen opposite want when races will walk hand in hand and everything in the garden will be lovely. We would all like that, but as practical politicians we know that it is not possible.
The alternative to a "Tiger" settlement, which is the only possible settlement open to us at the moment, is a continuation of sanctions for another three years, gradually being eroded, with British trade being lost, with pressure building up in the United Nations, and with more and more pressure from the left wing on the other side of the house for the use of force and more and more backing from the extreme nations of the United Nations. This is the alternative to a settlement based on the "Tiger" Constitution—

Mr. Whitaker: Why did the hon. Gentleman vote against it?

Mr. Wall: —which was accepted by the hon. Gentleman's Government, whom I suppose he supports—

Mr. Whitaker: Why did the hon. Gentleman vote against it?

Mr. Wall: —and by the Rhodesian Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it really in order for hon. Gentlemen to shout like this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the House to enable the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) to conclude his speech

Mr. Whitaker: Why did the hon. Gentleman vote against the "Tiger" constitution?

Mr. Wall: I believe that the "Tiger" constitution is the only possible solution to this problem.—[Interruption.]—Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you ask the—

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) has been shouting from a sitting position for about five minutes. Is it not time that he was reprimanded?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) to restrain himself.

Sir F. Bennett: Just because he went to Eton.

Mr. Wall: If I may put my points from a standing position—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wall: Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I will tell him why I believe that the "Tiger" Constitution is the only one which has a chance of being accepted by the British and Rhodesian Governments as a reasonable compromise, and I support that constitution.
I do not, and did not and will not support the Prime Minister's formula for a return to legality. It was rejected by the Rhodesian Government, and voted against by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, because it had too many loop holes. It meant Rhodesia and Rhodesians trusting our Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—They were not prepared to do it, and I do not believe they are prepared to trust any British politicians.

Mr. Rose: Who is wrecking the talks now?

Mr. Wall: The alternative to "Tiger" is a continuation of this quarrel for another three years, gradually eroding sanctions. The only possible thing that the Government can do to strengthen sanctions—and this was referred to by one hon. Gentleman opposite—is to blockade Lourenço Marques. The South Africans have already told the Government what would happen if we did that. Another suggestion is to increase the number of goods on the prohibited list. The present prohibited list has not been all that effective. I do not know that putting other goods on that list will make it any more effective.
Lastly, it was suggested that we should cut off all communications. I wonder what the people of this country would feel if they could not write to or telephone their relations in Rhodesia. Of course all they would do would be to have a poste-restante address in South Africa and have their mail forwarded, which would result in a delay of two days. But I believe that a wave of anger against right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite taken together with all the other disputes that there are at the moment would, I believe, sweep them from office.
I believe that commonsense demands a settlement. I know that both black and white in Southern Africa—not only in Rhodesia—want a settlement. At the last poll 72 per cent. of the British people said that they wanted a settlement.


I believe that this is the Government's last chance, and I hope to heaven that they will take it.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I will seek, since no new points are emerging, to reply to the debate.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. The Minister has said that no new points are emerging, but there are several hon. Members who wish to address the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is entitled to comment if he wants to on the speeches which he has heard.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order. May we take it that the Minister's reference is not to the fact that he is now closing the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is entitled to reply to the debate, but that does not necessarily conclude it.

Mr. Thomas: I have no authority to close any debate. The Chair decides that.
This subject of Rhodesia is an emotional one. It is for me. I much appreciated the quiet tone in which the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) responded to what I said earlier, though I thought that he did far less than justice to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
The debate has taken a course on which I am bound to say a few words. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) is absolutely right when he reminds us that what is at stake is the well-being of the people of Rhodesia, regardless of their colour. I cannot sit here without thinking of the people who are not able to speak for themselves but whose hope and faith is in this House.
My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary has not gone to Rhodesia to sell our principles down the river. Be it known that at the Tory Party conference at Brighton the Leader of the Opposition insisted that we should stick at least to five of the principles which have been enunciated. The

speeches from the other side of the House tonight were representative of the Rhodesian Front.
This House cannot, with honour, shuffle out of its responsibilities for ensuring human rights in Rhodesia.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: What did the Government do in Aden?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has just appeared in the Chamber. I have been here all the time. He might as well go back to where I know he has been.

Mr. Taylor: If the Minister is suggesting that I am not 100 per cent. teetotal, I hope that he will withdraw what he said.

Mr. Thomas: If the House wants an answer to what has been said, I must be given a chance to give it.
What I want everyone to realise at once is that we are not going to shuffle out of our responsibilities for ensuring that there will be unimpeded progress towards majority rule in Rhodesia. The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) had the impertinence to suggest that the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich was not patriotic. The hon. Gentleman is no authority on patriotism. His speech about this country's policy with regard to sanctions has been the best contribution that has been made recently to raising the morale of Mr. Smith's followers. His speech recently attacking sanctions was welcomed in Rhodesia as a morale raiser for those who are seeking to persuade the Rhodesians there that they have won and that—

Mr. Evelyn King: rose

Mr. Thomas: I have not finished yet.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was damaging to British interests, was unpatriotic and unworthy of a Member of this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Thomas: I was giving way to the hon. Gentleman, Sir.

Mr. King: The question is whether the hon. Gentleman is not making some very foolish observations. I was in Rhodesia


and I can assure him that nothing did more damage to the cause which I think he has at heart than not what I said but what the Prime Minister said—that sanctions had not been successful.

Mr. Thomas: Let me try once again to make it quite clear that those who suggest that the Prime Minister said that sanctions have failed, as though we ought to call this exercise off, are misleading and distorting the truth. What the Prime Minister said was that, although we clearly have not yet had the political result which we desire, we must go on and we will go on until we get that political result—

Mr. Wall: rose

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat unless the Minister gives way.

Mr. Thomas: I was coming to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who tonight aroused a great deal of emotion, including my own. He recently wrote to the Commonwealth Office, seeking an interview with the Secretary of State—

Mr. Wall: Which I had, thank you.

Mr. Thomas: Oh, no, which the hon. Gentleman did not have, because, in his letter to the Office, he said that he did not wish to speak to the Minister of State because he knew his views and did not like them—

Mr. Wall: rose

Mr. Thomas: I will give way in a moment. I only want to tell the hon. Gentleman that I considered that a favour, because I do not like his views.

Mr. Wall: I want to make it quite clear—I hope that the Minister will put this letter on the Table—that I never said that I did not like him. I do like him, very much. I said that I thought that his speeches recently as a Minister of the Crown while I was in Rhodesia were not conducive to a settlement, which is what his Government are supposed to be seeking.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman says that he did not say that he did not like my views—

Mr. Wall: Ah.

Mr. Thomas: I was referring to views, that when the hon. Gentleman thinks of my views on Rhodesia he is unable to sleep at night.
It is an affront to our conscience, and to anyone with a Christian conscience and to every decent instinct, that 4 million Africans in Rhodesia should be denied the right to share in the Government of their land and should have their civic rights dependent upon the colour of their skin. This is not a party point. Neither the hon. Member for Haltemprice nor the hon. Member for Dorset, South are speaking for the Conservative Party. Let me quote from the Leader of the Opposition speaking in the House. The first quotation may be familiar. In November 1965, he said:
We recognise that it is an illegal Government and that the Government of this country can have no dealings with it. We do not in any way condone its actions and neither must the Governor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 539.]
Answering the question which the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) asked about the fact that there are other illegal Governments which we recognize—answering it in anticipation, as it were—the Leader of the Opposition said:
It may seem strange to some outside that whereas there are illegal or unconstitutional Governments in other parts of the world which we recognise, perhaps overnight—although very often we disapprove of them—in this particular case we take the view that it is an illegal Government and cannot be recognised or condoned and that there cannot be dealings with it. It is important that the House should recognise the source from which this arises. It is the relationship to the Crown and the responsibility which we have to all the peoples in Rhodesia."—[OFFICIAI, REPORT, 12th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 539.]
I do not believe that the Conservative Party in the country or the right hon. Member for Bridlington, or the Leader of the Opposition, would want to go back on our obligations to the Africans as well as to the White people in Rhodesia.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I understand the argument which the hon. Member has just read out and I referred to it in my speech. But would he deal with the point which I made, which is that even if that were accepted as valid up to now, how


can it be reconciled with the Government's attitude in Aden where there is a rebellion against the British Crown and where we have responsibilities to all the people?

Mr. Thomas: These lawyers will bring in issues splitting hairs. In Rhodesia this House carries a responsibility for ensuring that the civic rights of people shall not depend on the colour of their skins. Those who have spoken for Mr. Smith tonight, who say that sanctions have failed and who ask us to take sanctions off, are taking their stand on a racialism which is unworthy of the House.
Let us look at sanctions for a moment. I do not believe for a moment that anyone has a right to say, "Sanctions are not working. Take them off". The Prime Minister has never said that. There is abundant evidence, some of it provided at first hand by Mr. Smith and his colleagues, that sanctions are having a considerable effect on the Rhodesian economy. Only the other day, in the context of my right hon. Friend's proposed visit to Salisbury, Mr. Smith is reported to have made it clear that the first prize for Rhodesia still remains an acceptable settlement, since this would mean the end of sanctions which are, to use his words, "hampering the Rhodesian economy". "Hampering" is a strange word to use to describe a situation in which the country's resources are largely being tied up in unsaleable stockpiles of tobacco and other commodities.

Sir F. Bennett: Just like the London docks.

Mr. Thomas: It would be very difficult for Mr. Smith to use any other word than "hampering" because, if he did, he would be making nonsense of the claims of some of his spokesmen for the régime in recent days.
My right hon. Friend is in a difficult position in Salisbury. It has been made more difficult by the speeches opposite that have been directed to stiffening Mr. Smith. My right hon. Friend has been rightly praised by the right hon. Member for Bridlington as a man of integrity. We have a right to expect—and I believe that this is usually borne out—that people on both sides of the House, serving in public life, should have integrity. My right hon. Friend provides it in abundance.
My right hon. Friend has gone to Salisbury as a man of honour, carrying in his custody the honour of this country. He carries in his custody the five principles that the Leader of the Opposition told him should not be abandoned and, on the basis of this, he will discuss with Mr. Smith the future and its prospects. The House will realise how careful I have to be not to make anything worse, but I do not want the country to be misled by statements made by hon. Members opposite tonight, who have spoken as though a settlement was easy to reach, as though all we have to do is to be reasonable. What we have to do, apparently, is to throw over our moral scruples.
It has been my privilege to serve in this House a long time, and I value and cherish the right to be a Member of it. I value it as one of the greatest things in my life. This House has heard the voices of Gladstone and many others—[Laughter.]—they are not laughing stocks to me—who have stood up here for human rights and liberties down through the ages and, in doing so, have spoken for the British people. If this House were to go back on the moral principle that a man's rights must not depend upon the colour of his skin, I would be ashamed to belong to it.

Mr. Wall: rose

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Sit down.

Mr. Thomas: I am going to. [Laughter.] Just for the sake of the record, let me say I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) was not speaking to me.
I have every faith, and the Government have every faith, that an honourable settlement is possible, and we want an honourable settlement. Everyone wants it. But it must be one in which honour is something real and in which the rights of man belong to black as well as white.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I want my intervention to be brief—[Interruption.] I do not know whether it is the Rhodesian section of Rentacrowd that has arrived in the Public Gallery, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or whether it is still the Greek lot, but it was my aim to be brief, though it is sometimes difficult when one is constantly interrupted. [Interruption.] I have no objection to


developing my speech at greater length, but, out of deference to the House, I did not want to take too much time.
The Minister of State chose to intervene rather early in our proceedings, and he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) of some discourtesy. I have never looked for discourtesy from the Minister of State, but he told us that he wanted to speak then in order to answer the points made in the debate. Other hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to contribute to the debate—[An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] I know from the fact that an hon. Member opposite protested when the Minister rose because he feared that the debate was being brought to an end. Does the Minister mean that the points that may now be raised by his hon. Friends and mine will not be worthy of answer, or does he intend to seek to intervene again?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) was perfectly right in saying that everyone should speak in this debate with responsibility, and I want to do that. We are all in a difficulty. The House is in a difficulty, and the Government are in a particular difficulty because, for constitutional reasons, this debate has had to take place tonight.
My views on Rhodesia are well known. My views have not changed from the beginning of the trouble, since U.D.I. and even before it, but I do not wish even to suggest that the House should divide—although considering some of the things that hon. Members opposite have said and some of the epithets that have been hurled from that side across the Chamber, one would have thought that it was a debate in which a Division was almost bound to take place. I have no wish to stir up controversy, but I want to contribute to this debate as other right hon. and hon. Members have done.
I have been against sanctions from the start. I know that this has been a minority view in the House, but I am not sure that it has been a minority view in the country. I do not mind whether we accept the verdict of the hon. Gentleman that the sanctions, which it is the purpose of the Order to continue, have not been successful, or whether we take my verdict, which is that they have been a failure. I do not mind which description

we use, but my belief is that they have so far been a ruinous futility. If we want evidence of that we can get it from people who are certainly not on my side in the controversy.
If I were to put down a Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs he might—or he might not—reveal to the House exactly what are the views of some African States in the Commonwealth on sanctions—and of other African States also—because there is today a new mood in Africa. There is a desire to try to face some of the harsh facts of life there, and to work for better relationships between African States, whether they be white governed or black governed. There is a new mood, and that is why I so very much hope that a settlement can be achieved.

Mr, Hooley: Is the hon. Member seriously arguing that there is a change in Africa to the doctrine of apartheid?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: No, I am not arguing that there is a change of attitude to South African policy or necessarily even Rhodesian policy. There is, however, an increasing desire among African States, with the possible exception of three of them, to have peaceful coexistence in Africa and to have businesslike relations and trade, irrespective of the nature of the régime or the ideology of the Government. That is a new situation in Africa and that is why, perhaps, the Minister of State was quite right when he concluded on a somewhat more hopeful note than the note upon which he began.
At this moment, with Suez stopped, British ships are queueing outside South African ports. Let us remember that, as often as not, those British ships are victualled with good Rhodesian beef. Let us view with the greatest reserve what the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich said about South Africa, because the burden of his message to us was that we must now carry forward the quarrel between Her Majesty's Government and Rhodesia into a crusade in Southern Africa. That was the message which he gave to the House tonight. It was the right hon. and learned Gentleman who said that everyone should speak responsibly. I am sure that he spoke sincerely, but whether he spoke responsibly will be a matter of opinion.
Of course, the right hon. and learned Member and other hon. Members who have spoken from the Government benches are right. The sanctions must be either ended or extended. That is the logic of the situation. They are not succeeding in their object. It will not weaken the Minister's bargaining hand in Salisbury if he or any other hon. Member of this House says that the sanctions have not succeeded, and will not succeed without being extended. The whole of Southern Africa knows that. We know it. Even the Commonwealth Office knows it. There is, therefore, no harm in saying it. It happens to be the truth.
From his point of view, the hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right to say that he is on the side of those forces which have been invading Rhodesia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice said, they were invading Rhodesia with their objective in South Africa. It has nothing to do with U.D.I., as right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench have sometimes suggested. Those terrorists, freedom fighters, heroes or guerrillas, call them what one will, were invading Rhodesia and their objective was South Africa.
My hon. Friend was right when he said that those invaders have no support whatever among the African population, and that is why they have no success in Rhodesia. If the situation in Rhodesia was as it is presented from the benches opposite, those well-armed and well-indoctrinated guerrilla troops would have been able by now to have established in Rhodesia a situation resembling that of Vietnam or Malaya in the days of the emergency, but they cannot get a hold there because the African people are against them. That is the truth of the matter.
We have heard the Nibmar incantation again tonight. When one considers the result of Nibmar north of the Zambesi and what it has done in Africa, and when one considers Nibmar in the light of the chaos and carnage which is the Government's legacy in Aden for all the people there, for whom they are responsible, Nibmar becomes nothing but a hideous hypocrisy.
The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich gave us quite a catalogue of the atrocities which are committed upon the

Rhodesian people by the Rhodesian Government, but most of what he said had nothing to do with the Order. It had nothing to do with what has happened since U.D.I. He was speaking of things which happened long before U.D.I.

Sir Dingle Foot: Before and after.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes, but there is a difference between the situation before and after. This is what should be considered when easy allegations about a police State are made. I do not know exactly how to define a police State. Every State in Africa is a police State. But when these allegations are made, let those who make them reflect on one simple fact, that there are far fewer Africans detained or kept in restriction in Rhodesia now than there were under Sir Edgar Whitehead in the constitutional days before U.D.I. That is a fact.
Some hon. Members opposite are not really interested in an orderly progress. They say "Nibmar, Nibmar". That will reduce Rhodesia to the state of affairs to which other African territories further north have been subjected. Nibmar is a miserable irrelevance, and it is a terrible pity that Her Majesty's Government, under the pressure from their back benches, have to get themselves into that very difficult impasse.
I agree so much with what has been said, I think on both sides of the House; it is not going to be easy to get a settlement and the time is running out. I am as disturbed as hon. Members opposite by some of the legislation now proposed in Rhodesia, but, to the credit of Mr. Smith, it may be said that he conducted with moderation and statesmanship the Rhodesian Front Congress. Every extremist motion, every Republican motion, at that congress was rejected. Some tribute might be paid to the statesmanlike manner in which that conference was conducted. Incidentally, it finished with the British national anthem, which is more than can be said for the party conference of hon. Members opposite.
This proposed legislation only indicates first that the effect of sanctions has been to encourage extremism, and secondly that time is short for the honourable settlement which the Minister of State rightly says we all want to see.
The tragedy of this Rhodesian situation is that we have not only lost our trade—and it is not much use being scornful about that with the present balance of payments situation in this country—but, worse than that, we are losing our influence. It is the ideological influence of South Africa, and not of Great Britain, that is progressively becoming more dominant in Rhodesia for every day that these sanctions are continued and a settlement is not reached.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: No, I am about to sit down. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch the eye of the Chair then.
The last word I want to utter is one of good wishes for all that may now be done in Salisbury, on both sides, to reach that honourable settlement which the Minister of State has told us is the aim of Her Majesty's Government.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I wish to make a brief point, and it is this. For a long time it has been the contention of many hon. Members opposite that whatever the defects of Mr. Smith's régime or of Mr. Smith himself—and I am glad that hon. Members now admit that they have some defects—it is at least the effective Government, the de facto Government, of Rhodesia, that it is the authority. This is an argument which can no longer be sustained and it is very important for the policy of Her Majesty's Government that this should be recognised.
Mr. Smith has called into Rhodesia, which is British territory, foreign troops and foreign police to uphold his authority. This being so, it can no longer be argued that he is the governing force in Rhodesia. He has surrendered his powers, such as they were, to a foreign Government.
Troops from a foreign State have been operating on British territory. I am dismayed that a more forthright stand against this has not been taken by the British Government. There was forthright condemnation when it was alleged that troops or forces—call them what one will—had crossed from Zambia into Rhodesia. This was denounced sharply by the Government and by others. But

there has been no such forthright denunciation of the known and proclaimed fact that South African forces were operating in Rhodesia and that they had been called in by Mr. Smith.
A new and dangerous situation has been created, and we must take full cognisance of it. A long time ago, the Prime Minister said that the Government could not contemplate the use of force to settle the Rhodesia problem unless—this was an explicit exception—there was a breakdown of law and order in Rhodesia itself. What other proof of breakdown of law and order need be offered when a régime calls in foreign troops and police to put down military action on its own territory?
This is an extremely serious situation which, to my mind, alters the complexion of affairs in Rhodesia. At the very minimum, it calls for an immense intensification of all the pressures which we bring to bear on the Rhodesian Government. Moreover, it calls for a further reference of the matter to the Security Council. We have already called in aid the authority of the Security Council to take certain action in regard to the enforcement of sanctions. One of the important aspects of this dispute is that we have, as it were, committed the credit of the United Nations to the settlement of the dispute. If we now default, we shall not only for ever blemish our own record in Africa but we shall bring into serious discredit the authority and the machinery of the United Nations.
Now that foreign troops from another State have been operating on British territory, either we must take direct action ourselves in these circumstances, or, as an alternative or in addition, we must bring into play the international machinery for dealing with such a situation, which is the Security Council. The very minimum now required is an intensification of the sanctions against Rhodesia, and we should at the same time consider what action we may be forced into taking in regard to South Africa herself.
I hope that the conversations which took place recently in Pretoria will have induced a more intelligent attitude on the part of the South African Government, but, if not, they should be clearly warned by Her Majesty's Government of the perils of the course on which they


have embarked in invading British territory with their troops.
The fundamental question is whether this House exercises its lawful, uncontested and proper authority for the welfare and well being of all the people of Rhodesia. If we abdicate from that responsibility we shall have committed an unforgivable error and shall be condemned not only by Africa and the world but by our successors.

12 midnight.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): I apologise for arriving late and missing the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) and the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot). I shall accordingly make my remarks as brief as possible.
I do not think that the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has added much to the argument. Like a number of his hon. Friends, he wants to intensify sanctions, but fails to explain how, after two years' experience of sanctions, this can be done. The burden of our case is that it is impracticable and cannot be done.
I am sorry that the Minister of State has left the Chamber—

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): My hon. Friend apologises. He has been called out of the Chamber on a rather important matter and will be back in a few moments.

Mr. Hastings: I entirely accept that. What I have to say is a general remark, and perhaps the Minister will forgive me if I continue with it despite his having been called away.
At the end of his speech he said in an unqualified fashion that he wished success to the negotiations. All of us on this side of the House heartily echo that. But before that passage in his speech he seemed to me to cast aspersions on the views and even the integrity of a number of my hon. Friends who spoke in the debate. I should have thought that every hon. Member present tonight, whatever his or her views, would accept that this question is extraordinarily complex. The Minister would certainly accept that. A number of us on this side of the House

have done our best over the years, entirely in good faith, to understand it. If we have come to different conclusions from hon. Members opposite that is quite understandable. I should have thought that our speeches on this important matter might have been accorded the importance which they well merited tonight by the Minister.
We have a similar debate regularly at the beginning of each Session. It is symptomatic of the confusion created and fostered by the Government in so many aspects of foreign policy. We are asked at the beginning of each Session to renew these Orders, and it is explained that they are necessary. But whatever the precise terms may have been the Minister admitted, what the Prime Minister seemed to us to have admitted already, that the policy for which they are necessary has failed. We on this side of the House repeat each time not only that we consider that the policy has failed but that from the word "go" it was bound to fail. Then we all proceed to approve the Orders!
Looking back on this phase of British political history, our grandchildren will reckon that we were crazy. They will ask themselves how it was that, with the world in its present unstable condition and our country in its present position, we succeeded in making bitter enemies of the Rhodesians, while at the same time a British Foreign Secretary was more or less prostrating himself in front of a perfidious Egyptian dictator who had spent years trying to murder our men and damage our interests. Our descendants will ask how such a position could have come about. We may have strong, sincere and differing views on both sides of the House, but that is how the situation will appear looked at 50 years from now.
I beseech hon. Gentlemen opposite—I mean this with entire sincerity—to try to rid themselves of what, perhaps, on this side we would call their prejudices and what they would call their principles and to try to consider—I speak as a Rhodesian—the part which Rhodesia can play in a developing independent Africa. Looked at this way I believe that it could develop into a great entrepôt of trade; a sort of fulcrum between the north, predominantly black, and the south, predominantly under white control.


I believe the lesson of the world is that as trade increases so understanding grows as well. Aid will increasingly tend to reach the north through Rhodesia, or could, if she were left alone, and settled in a state of independence. I genuinely believe that this aspect is worth while at least considering.
I very much echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said, because this is not something I have dreamed up, or the view of those who share my opinions on Rhodesia. This is really the view increasingly of independent Commonwealth African countries. It is my belief that at the recent meeting of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee a number—five—of the African countries, in varying degree, suggested, on their own initiative, that the whole of this policy of sanctions had failed and that the time had, therefore, come to start talks to get some sense into the position.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman's speech, and from the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), that the sentiment on the other side of the House is that because we have been unsuccessful in putting down injustice we ought to concur in that injustice by dropping sanctions entirely for the sake of a little trade?

Mr. Hastings: No. That is not what I said. I would not accept for a moment the hon. Member's proposition that the Government have engaged in putting down injustice. I do not think the hon. Member understands Rhodesia or very much about Central or Southern Africa. What I am saying is that, increasingly now, independent African countries are coming to the conclusion that this is the best way, to make an arrangement—a deal, if hon. Members like—a reasonable deal—

Mr. Roebuck: A sell out.

Mr. Hastings: A sell out? I am not talking of my own view at the moment. I am talking of the views of African independent Commonwealth Territories. Surely this is something which at least ought to be borne in mind? I may be wrong, but it is my belief this is the position.
Furthermore, it is my belief that the proposition came originally not from Commonwealth countries south of the Zambesi or the Limpopo but from the north.
I am absolutely persuaded that my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell is quite right, and that this is the view taken by an increasing number—and I would say certainly five—of the independent African countries as to what should be done now. This if I am right, was the position before the secretary of State went out there, and I certainly hope it will—

Mr.George Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, for the sake of the record. Also, I apologise for being out of the Chamber for a short while. I attended, and that Committee unanimously set up a working party to consider ways and means of making sanctions more effective

Mr. Hastings: Yes. I know this, but I would suggest—he Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong—that the movement in that particular direction did not come from African countries but, perhaps, from Canada, perhaps from India. At the end it may well have been unanimous, but that in no way detracts from the proposition which I am advancing. I may be wrong, and the hon. Gentleman can contradict me, but he has not seen fit to do so.
There are only two African Commonwealth Territories which are wildly on the other side, both of them contiguous. I refer to Tanzania and Zambia. No one would seek to represent their views or those of the Governments who control them in any other way. But they are the two which are principally influenced by Peking and Moscow. No one who has been there would seek to deny that. They are the two who have recruited, trained, misled, housed and furthered the launching of terrorists across the Zambesi. I do not think that one can consider them unbiased. So there are five reasonable States against two subverted ones, and which of the two groups are really our friends?
It is difficult to return to a sense of reality at this stage, after all that has been


said. A great deal has been said, and a great deal of it has been most intemperate. I notice that one of this morning's newspapers describes the Prime Minister as having
fastened himself inside a straitjacket securely fastened with sanctions, principles and solemn declarations and called on almost the entire world to witness that he does not extricate himself…
I fear that that is about what he has done, and it will not be easy for the Government, with the best will in the world, to negotiate in the frame of mind which I should have hoped that they could. But I am among those who wish the Secretary of State the best of good fortune, and I hope that he can achieve something.
If it comes, agreement will involve a heavy swallowing of pride, perhaps on both sides. I beg hon. Members opposite to ask themselves which is the most important—the implementation of a series of what I consider to be unapplicable principles and the imposition of what appears to be democracy, falsely founded and full of the seeds of its own collapse; or the evolution of a way of life and a harmony between the races based upon compromise, experience, trial and error over the years, in stability, and with a good hope of peace. That is the difference between the views of those who call themselves "progressive" in this country and those of us who know something about Africa.
I pray sincerely that the negotiations succeed. I have been connected with the country practically since I was born. If they fail, a new situation will have been created, and I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends as much as to hon. Gentlemen opposite that, if they fail and this policy is continued, Her Majesty's Government will be seen deliberately to pursue a policy which is not only harmful to this country but which is devoid of objective and of hope. I hope that those circumstances will not obtain. But, if we should reach that pass, this would be unacceptable, and I, for one, would have had enough.

12.14 a.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Neither I nor any of my hon. Friends on this bench intended to intervene in this debate. It is a subject on which we

hoped that the whole House would be unanimous.
I can recall the time when it seemed to be so. Before I came to the House, during the General Election campaign of March, 1966, I well recall that my opponent, Mr. William Shepherd, the former Member for my constituency, disagreed with me about almost everything. But on one matter we were in total accord, and that was Rhodesia.
It is greatly to be regretted that in some curious way the House is drifting apart in various different directions.
I do not wish to quarrel with the speeches made from this side of the House which are genuinely groping for some kind of solution, accepting the need for uninterrupted progress towards majority rule, but perhaps looking for other ways of getting it. That is a constructive kind of approach which I can accept; but I feel very disturbed when I hear the kind of speeches which are intended to obscure the issue, blur the edges, and generally lead people to believe that we are no longer bent upon the same course.
I believe that the Minister of State was right to remind us of the work which was done in securing freedoms in this country many years ago. It may seem an irrelevance, but it seems to me that people outside this House need to be reminded from time to time that the rights and privileges which we enjoy in this country did not just fall from the sky. They were not always here. They had to be worked and fought for against fierce and bitter opposition from the kind of interests and the kind of attitudes which are sometimes unhappily expressed from some parts of this side of the House and occasionally, I regret to say, from some parts of the other side. We must remember that they are the same kind of freedoms that we are considering. When there was first talk about spreading the vote in this country to people other than property owners, it was said that it was opeing the flood gates of said that it was opening the flood gates of revolution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would point out that the hon. Member is wandering a long way beyond the subject of Rhodesia.

Dr. Winstanley: I am rapidly coming to it, but there is an important analogy in relation to this Order which the House should be considering. At that time people said that these kind of freedoms, which we are working for in Rhodesia, would, if given in this country at that early time, open the flood gates of revolution. It may be that some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House think that that has happened when they look opposite. Nevertheless, these are the kind of things which we have worked for, and we ought to recognise that if we value these things in this country we must also value them to the same extent in any other country, in any other part of the world. I believe that any attacks on freedom, wherever they occur throughout the whole world, are in the end attacks on freedom here. It is that kind of moral issue which we are discussing.
I believe that the stories now coming from Rhodesia are similar to the kind of stories which I member hearing coming from Nazi Germany in the 1930s. We paid a terrible price for not listening to those stories in the 1930s, and I believe that we would pay the same price all over again if we failed to listen to them here on the issue of Rhodesia.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) spoke about the verdict of our descendants: what would they think about us having quarrelled with our kith and kin in Rhodesia? Surely they are much more likely to judge us by our own ability to get on not with those with whom we are ethnologically connected, but how we have managed to get on with different people in different places and what kind of relationship we have achieved with them.
I think that this is the last time on which this House should be casting any doubt about our intentions. Certainly I see nothing wrong with hon. Gentlemen ventilating other possibilities and suggesting other ways of getting the same thing: saying that sanctions might not be the right way and it may be that we will have to have another approach. It is true to say—and I hope that I will not be misunderstood—that I do not take as inflexible and rigid a view as some of my hon. Friends on this bench or some hon. Members opposite. I would be prepared to see certain changes in our approach, but I would be prepared

to accept them only if a I felt that I had in some way got unequivocal and acceptable guarantees of unimpeded progress towards majority rule. We do not have to be totally rigid. Some hon. Members have put forward points of view which I respect, but I do not think that we can tolerate any blurring of the edges in this matter or any kind of expressions of opinion which would suggest, at a critical time in Rhodesia, that we are weakening in our intent.
In view of what has been said, I felt it right to assure the Government that, whilst we often have difficulty in finding things to support in their policies, and we look in vain for things to support in their economic policies, and, indeed, we sometimes find it difficult to support their foreign policy, in this matter they have our unqualified support.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: The hour is late, and I shall not detain the House for long, but I have listened to all the speeches, and I want to try to bring the House back to what I regard as the central issue in this matter, namely, whether Mr. Smith's regime did, or did not, seize power illegally, and whether they are, or are not, rebels. I do not think that this issue has been seriously argued by hon. Gentlemen opposite tonight.
My second major point concerns the responsibility which those who are privileged to belong to this House have for all the black Africans. I do not think that any consideration or short-term economic benefits which might ensue from the dropping of sanctions can be allowed to deter us from our duty in that regard.
Some of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite have been quite disgraceful, and I refer in particular to the speech of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), who is out of the Chamber at the moment. The hon. Gentleman is known to us on this side of the House. I understand that he once sat with us, but wandered away afterwards. I think that the way in he walked off then is as nothing compared with the tours which he has been making among certain Portuguese people and during which, apparently, he has been decrying the efforts which the Government have been making to bring the


rebels to book. I thought that this was a disgraceful episode.
When this trouble arose I was not one of those who felt that we should tackle it by military force. I felt that it was wrong to do so, for two reasons. First, because I did not think that we could sustain the operation logistically, and, secondly, because I feared that any spark struck on the African continent might light a fire that we would not be able to put out and it would cause great harm to the world. My view at that time was that we ought to have sanctions, and very effective ones indeed. We have had the sanctions, and it is unfortunate that they have not been as effective as one might have hoped. Part of the blame for this resides with not all, but a tiny group of hon. Gentlemen opposite who have constantly given aid and encouragement to the rebels in Rhodesia.
I should like the Government not only to continue the sanctions which we have put into effect, but to take more effective action in the international community to see that other countries also observe the rules. I refer particularly to Japan. I understand that the Japanese are importing large quantities of chrome from Rhodesia. I should also like the Government to make strong representations to the President of France. I understand that recently there has been some trade with France in low-grade tobacco.
The burden of the argument of one hon. Gentleman opposite was that we should abandon our policy of sanctions because it was affecting our trade and affecting us financially. Some time ago, during a debate in this House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the attitudes of the Lancashire cotton workers in support of the oppressed people in the United States when they were struggling against white supremacy. My right hon. Friend told us how they suffered, but they did not weaken in their resolve to fight for what they thought was right and honourable. They were prepared to suffer financially. As a child I remember being shown a statue of Abraham Lincoln erected by the cotton workers of Lancashire. That impressed me that there were other things in life worth fighting for than simple affluence. It is unfortunate that, in this discussion,

as in others, hon. Gentlemen opposite have failed to recognise that lesson.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved.

WAYS AND MEANS

ERSKINE BRIDGE TOLLS

Motion made, and Question proposed,

1. That the Secretary of State shall be authorised, in accordance with orders to be made by him, to levy tolls in respect of vehicles using new roads constructed or to be constructed by the Secretary of State which cross the River Clyde at Erskine by a bridge or constitute the approaches to such bridge.
2. That it is expedient to provide—

(a) for imposing restrictions and other requirements in respect of vehicles stopping or remaining at rest on the said roads, and for securing the removal of such vehicles and the imposition of charges in respect of their removal;
(b) for securing the operation (either by the Secretary of State or by other persons) of a service of removing such vehicles from the said roads;
(c) for extending, in relation to the said roads, the powers of prohibiting or restricting the use of roads conferred by the enactments relating to road traffic;
(d) for imposing other prohibitions and restrictions in relation to the said roads and in relation to structures, buildings, works or apparatus on, under, or over those roads or connected therewith or with the regulation of traffic thereon or with the levying of tolls as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Resolution;
(e) for the provision of parking places in connection with the said roads by the Secretary of State, who shall be authorised to enter into agreements with local authorities as to the operation of those parking places.

3. That tolls levied as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Resolution and any sums received by the Secretary of State in connection with the removal of vehicles as mentioned in paragraph 2(a) of this Resolution shall be paid into the Exchequer.
4. That it is expedient to provide for other matters incidental or supplementary to the matters specified in the preceding paragraphs of this Resolution.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am not clear exactly what we are doing here, and perhaps I may be enlightened. We seem to be accepting a principle. Is it in order to ask this, and


to return to the subject once I get a reply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The hon. Member is perfectly in order to ask the Minister questions about it. The House is discussing a Ways and Means Resolution, which is a necessary preliminary to a Bill to be introduced later, which will also give the hon. Member the opportunity of discussing the matter. But he is entitled now to ask questions about the purpose of the Resolution.

Mr. Brown: I am suspicious, because when we pass something, it often seems that we are committed.
Paragraph 1 says:
…the Secretary of State shall be authorised, in accordance with orders to be made by him…
I presume that he will be given the necessary powers by the Bill, but this raises a general principle about tolls. There are three ways of operating this in Scotland alone: I do not know the English position. The financial position for the Forth Bridge is different from that for the Tay Bridge. This is another Exchequer method of getting a return on the money spent.
When is the proper time for the House to discuss the general principle of tolls in Scotland? Since we are all a little touchy on the subject, I accept that no discrimination against Scotland is intended, because the same practice operates on the Severn and the Tyne, but I am a little perturbed, because this comes before the House apparently without any opportunity for discussing the general principle. I do not think that there should be tolls on any Scottish bridge. The Labour Party in Scotland thinks the same, though that is not necessarily the last word—[Interruption.]—I see no great interest from hon. Members opposite in this matter. I have already mentioned today that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) is on holiday and not interested in some of these important matters affecting the people of Scotland.
I cannot understand the logic of this. I see that anything which brings hack money for the Exchequer is good from their point of view, but because the Clyde Tunnel, the Glasgow Ring Road or the straightening of some Dumfriesshire roads are expensive does not mean that we

should stick on tolls, but we do it with bridges or something unusual. It does not make sense. I hope that my hon. Friend can enlighten me on some of the principles raised in the Resolution.

12.30 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I am bursting with knowledge about the area concerned and the bridge concerned, but, unhappily, I should be brought to order if I attempted to comply with the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) to have that information. If he is anxious to have it in a form which will be comprehensible and relevant to the questions which he asked, I must ask him to defer his queries to the time when the Bill is before the House.
This is a Ways and Means Resolution enabling me to bring before the House the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill. The reason for that Ways and Means Resolution is that the Secretary of State has no general power to levy tolls on bridges. To get that power he has to bring in a Bill. Until we bring in the Bill we cannot give my hon. Friend adequate gratification of his very relevant curiosity about the Government's purposes, plans and arrangements in respect of the Bill. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will assent to the Ways and Means Resolution as the best means not only of getting the Bill before the House but of getting gratification of his curiosity.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means. Mr. William Ross, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, and Mr. Harold Lever.

ERSKINE BRIDGE TOLLS BILL

Bill to empower the Secretary of State to levy tolls in respect of the use of a new road which crosses the River Clyde at Erskine and of certain roads provided in connection therewith; to enable the Secretary of State to provide parking places in connection with those roads and, in relation to those roads, to impose prohibitions, restrictions and other requirements for the purpose of preventing obstruction and for the protection of property and otherwise; for connected purposes, presented accordingly and read the


first time; to be read a second time this day, and to be printed. [Bill 8.]

MID-WALES (DEVELOPMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Varley.]

12.32 a.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am grateful even at this late hour for the opportunity to voice once again the case for Mid-Wales. It has been put to the House by many hon. Members in past years. The salient facts of the situation are known to all of us. We know that Mid-Wales is a community and an economy which is debilitated and we also know the numerous factors which have brought such a condition into being. No one who has the interests of the area at heart would seek to palliate the facts and the twin factors of failure to attract a sufficiency of necessary commercial and industrial growth and also a relentless loss of population which has proceeded unabated for a century.
Even prior to the election of 1964 the Labour Party showed itself to be realistically aware of the problems of the area. In its publication "Signposts to the New Wales", it showed a determination to combat this issue. This spirit was crystallised in this sentence:
Labour believes that radical action is needed to revitalise the central area of Wales.
It is against the background of such a clarion call that the Government's current policies in relation to Mid-Wales must be judged.
Shortly after the creation of the Welsh Office in October, 1964, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), the first Secretary of State for Wales, announced that the Government would consider a plan for the building of a massive new town in central Wales. We all admired his zeal and determination. Some of us, however, disagreed with the plan on grounds of practicality and otherwise, in particular the effect that it would have on the life of that part of the country.
Our concern tonight is with two facets of that decision. First, in accepting the plan, the Government committed them-

selves in principle to expenditure of about £137 million; secondly, they showed themselves to be thinking of the development of the area of Mid-Wales as a whole and not of a minute part thereof. On 15th March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, in the debate on this topic in the Welsh Grand Committee, announced a substantial amendment of the plan to build a new town in central Wales. There was, however, no ostensible weakening in the Government's resolve to resuscitate Mid-Wales as an area. He reiterated the Government's pledge in these words:
…the Government recognise the need to strengthen the economy of Mid-Wales in order to stem the steady drift away from the area…
The means of implementing that undertaking were twofold. On the one hand, there was a plan for the creation of a Mid-Wales Development Corporation whose first task was to bring about the doubling of the existing town of Newtown in Montgomeryshire. The other limb was dealt with by my right hon. Friend as follows:
But I attach no less importance to the Government's other major decision, which is to foster the growth of existing towns by the provision of factories and housing for incoming workers. It is absolutely vital—I cannot stress this sufficiently to right hon. and hon. Members—to hold a very delicate balance between the various towns in the area—and between the urban centres generally and the surrounding rural areas with their villages. That is why I attach so much importance to the task of building up a series of what the Development Commissioners have described as 'anchor points' in Mid-Wales".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee; 15th March, 1967, c. 8–10.]
The question now asked in Mid-Wales is, where and when are the fruits of these aspirations to appear? The impression which others and I gained during that debate was that the new town project at Rhayadar and other existing towns schemes would proceed contemporaneously and that the Development Corporation which had been announced would serve all these enterprises.
There are two matters which tend at any rate to undermine such hopes. First, Section 1 of the New Towns Act, 1965, which the Welsh Office has stated that it will use to create the Corporation, seems to me to be suitable only for a corporation to develop one single unit, such


as, perhaps, the doubling of Newtown in Montgomeryshire. It is true that the limit can be extended somewhat at a later date if necessary, but I doubt whether that extension would be beyond the present perimeter of the town or a few miles beyond. I doubt whether such a corporation could be adapted to serve the other existing towns without the necessity of setting up a separate development corporation for each new town.
That being so, why was it called the "Mid-Wales Development Corporation" when its activities will be confined to a very small part of the area of Mid-Wales and when there is no current intention and possibly no legal power to create any jobs or expenditure in monies outside the area of Newtown, Montgomeryshire?
The second source of dubiety arises from the replies which my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have given to me in past months with regard to the timing of the operation. On 26th July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales stated that the first task of the Corporation was to develop Newtown, and that he would consider later whether the Corporation should be entrusted with further responsibility. He had earlier stated that the new town quoted would take some seven years to complete. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will agree that there is little prospect of the existing towns bringing about growth by their own efforts; only a comprehensive centrally financed body can do this. Such a decision about the old towns of Mid-Wales might be deferred for as long as 10 years. To the bureaucratic eye, this may seem a short span, but to those living in these places it is an eternity, because during that period it may well he that the decline will have proceeded at a steady and inexorable pace so as to place those towns, or some of them, beyond the point of no return as virile communities.
I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister of State will pardon my mentioning another consideration. Whilst giving her and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the fullest credit for zeal and efficiency, I doubt whether the greatest Labour zealot can be certain that in 10 years' time this Government will still be in power. It could then be that a suc-

cessor Government might take no interest whatsoever in Mid-Wales.
I have no desire to overstate my case for urgent and speedy action, but it is a case that has been eloquently articulated in this House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in years past. Mid-Wales today, due largely to Government efforts, is more conscious than ever before of its massive problems. It is probably equally true to say that in the five counties concerned there is greater apprehension than ever before for the social and economic future of the areas.
No one denies that the Government have paid greater attention than did any of their predecessors to the problems of Mid-Wales. It is, in a way, ironic that the Welsh Office should be the victim of its own advocacy, and should be denigrated for not immediately providing a panacea for a situation which its predecessors had largely chosen to ignore. No one can fairly refute the claim that Mid-Wales will, in the long term, derive benefit from the provisions of the Industrial Development Act, 1966, and from regional employment premiums.
The advance factory programme, which has gained momentum since 1964, has also provided development which would not, without such succour, have come to the area. Some growth can also be expected from the limited efforts of the various towns themselves, and only a bigot would condemn such efforts out of hand. Likewise, only a person who had no knowledge of Mid-Wales or who was deliberately dishonest would pretend that such agencies, by themselves, could turn back the tide of decline in the area.
The 1967 Report of the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association—a body which has rendered invaluable and inspired service to Mid-Wales—shows very clearly that between 1956 and 1966 the population of the area decreased by 6,040, or 3·3 per cent. of its total population. Such figures do not reflect the loss to this ageing community by the constant outward migration of its younger and more virile people.
I trust that all I have said endorses the need for the preparation of a plan for the comprehensive development of Mid-Wales. Such a view has been propounded by many hon. Members during the past few years. It has also been


strongly advocated by the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association, a body which probably knows more about the problems of this area than any other having connections therewith.
Many events and happenings have given a spurt to such aspirations. In particular, there has been the foundation of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, operating over an area in Scotland which is almost twice the size of Wales. There are also the precedents from all over the world during the last 30 years of similar schemes, ranging from T.V.A., in the United States, to enterprises in the Republic of Ireland, in Holland, in Norway and in Italy. Traditional remedies cannot effectively combat the economic perils which threaten to engulf Mid-Wales.
Localised developments in Newtown and Rhayader can have no direct effect upon the rest of Mid-Wales beyond reminding it of its own impotence to revive itself. Growth there must be, but the local authorities, who are themselves casualties of economic debility, cannot be expected to provide it. All these factors combine to make an unanswerable case for the establishment of a powerful, adequately-financed board for the unified and comprehensive development of Mid-Wales.
Such a board should operate separate from, but in concord with, the local authorities in the area. In the main, it should be responsible for the preparation of a master plan for the integrated development of agriculture, industry and tourism. It should take over in the area the powers of the proposed rural development board, a body which, though subjected to hysterical criticism, represents a pioneering development in Mid-Wales, despite the spleenful motivation and unbelievable misconception which exists in relation to it.
The proposed rural development board for Mid-Wales should be empowered in consultation with the Welsh Office and other Ministries, to prepare a scheme of grants, loans and incentives for fostering enterprises conducive to the general economic growth of the area. It should also have the task of reclaiming derelict and unproductive land to agriculture, the development of natural resources, the provision of amenities necessary to foster

the growth of tourism and the duty of publicising the potential of the area internationally. Amongst its wide functions should be included the power to build factories and to acquire, by voluntary agreement, shareholdings in any project which could contribute to the development of Mid-Wales.
Additionally, it is necessary that the proposed development board should have powers to build houses in anticipation of attracting key workers and new industries, on the lines of the Scottish Special Housing Association. The proposed board should also have the power to survey the amenity services of the area and to develop, or contribute towards developing, where necessary, these services. Such functions should include the power to develop strategic roads which would channel development into the area from neighbouring growth regions. The board should have its own independent budget, which should be negotiated annually with the Treasury and the Welsh Office.
I hope and trust that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will withstand the temptation of finding ostensibly sound bureaucratic reasons for rejecting such a proposal. I make this case not as an attack upon the efforts of the Welsh Office, for which I have given, and do give, credit, but out of a sincere conviction that the acuteness and intensity of the problem in Mid-Wales demands a sense of urgency and a boldness of spirit such as no Government have yet manifested.

12.49 a.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): Although this is a rather late hour to be discussing this matter, I very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) was successful in obtaining this time, because no one has been more assiduous in his interest in the problems of Mid-Wales, as is shown not only by his contributions in the House and by the Questions which he tables on these matters, but also by the representations which he makes, with considerable pertinacity, to those of us who hold responsibility in the Welsh Office.
I am, therefore, glad to have this chance of speaking on the subject which my hon. Friend has introduced. I am


all the more concerned to be able to do so because I think from what my hon. Friend has said that there are certain misapprehensions, and if he, who takes such a very keen and close interest in this subject, is labouring under certain misapprehensions, one must only suppose that there may be other people less well informed than himself who are perhaps also in some doubt about the Government's policy with regard to Mid-Wales.
If I may first of all in general terms restate that policy, before I come to the two particular matters which my hon. Friend has raised, I think I can fairly say that under the present Government we have for Mid-Wales a vigorous forward-looking policy which covers agriculture, forestry, manufacturing industry, town planning, and shortly I hope will show particular expansion in the realm of tourism and the development of amenities.
I ask the House: have any Government at any time paid anything approaching the attention which we are now giving to the problems of Mid-Wales? My hon. Friend has rightly said that this is a problem of very long standing. Over the past century the population in this area has gradually declined by as much as a quarter. I am happy to say that the more recent figures indicate that in the last few years that process appears to be coming to an end, but we cannot for one moment be complacent about it because we have not yet turned the tide. The most that we can hope to have done at the present time is to have stemmed it.
Having said this, I think I should deal with the specific points which my hon. Friend has raised about one special aspect of this policy, which is town development. My hon. Friend referred to the procedure for the Mid-Wales Corporation whose first task will be to double the size of Newtown, and the draft Order was published only last week. He suggested that it will not be possible to do as we have proposed, to continue beyond Newtown if it seems desirable to do so and to undertake development in other towns. I am not a lawyer. My hon. Friend is. But I am advised by our legal advisers that he is mistaken in this matter, that there is no doubt at all that the proposed Corporation, on the assumption that the draft Order will in due time

be confirmed, as its name implies, will be enabled, if it is so decided, to extend its activities to other towns in Mid-Wales; but, of course, on each occasion one has to go through the procedure of designation and, if required, public inquiry and so on. That is a separate procedure on each occasion.
But there is nothing to stop the Corporation which will be set up to double the size of Newtown, from doubling the size of Rhayader, Builth, Bala and other places within the general designation of Mid-Wales. So my advice is at variance with the opinion of my hon. Friend. If he would like to meet one of the legal advisers of the Welsh Office to settle the legal points, we shall be happy to arrange that.
Similarly, it appeared to me that he was under some misapprehension about the possible time table. At no point has the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association or the Welsh Office indicated that we were likely to be in a position to embark upon all these extensions simultaneously. It was always intended that there should be a sequence, but that does not mean that one has to complete the procedure in Newtown before one can start anything else.
I gathered from some of his remarks that my hon. Friend was of the opinion that one would have to wait the seven or 10 years during which the process of enlarging Newtown in Montgomeryshire took place before one could do anything else. This is entirely mistaken. It is only because there have been some little local difficulties over Rhayader that we are not yet able to look in detail at the position there and to decide whether, for the kind of development which is envisaged for Rhayader, it will be desirable to use the Newtown procedure.
I tried to explain this in my speech in the Welsh Grand Committee last March. We are not yet in a position to look at the proposals for Rhayader, because they are not yet finalised. When, in due course, we receive the proposals for Bala or for Builth, we shall consider whether they can be carried out under the existing arrangements by which local authorities build houses and so on and under which advance factories can be provided; or whether, as may well prove to be the case, it will be desirable for


them to come under the aegis of the new Corporation. I hope that I have set my hon. Friend's mind at rest on those points.
The other major question my hon. Friend raised was to ask that we establish a powerful board for the unified and comprehensive development of Mid-Wales. He then listed a series of responsibilities for this proposed board, almost all of which—he did not mention police or prisons—come within the civil authority, and he said that they should be under the aegis of the board.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does not my hon. Friend agree that all the powers and functions which I mentioned in relation to the proposed board belong now to the Highlands and Islands Development Board which was set up in 1965 to deal with similar affairs in Scotland?

Mrs. White: I am coming to that. I went last summer to see, as far as one could in a short but active visit, just how the Highlands and Islands Development Board functions. I respectfully suggest that, if he can find an opportunity, my hon. Friend might well find it enlightening to do the same. Although it is true that the Highlands and Islands Board has considerable powers in various directions, it is still, as Professor Grieve, the chairman, is the first to admit, only one of many organisations in the Highlands which are concerned with development. The Highlands Board has supplanted a former advisory panel which advised the Secretary of State for Scotland, but, apart from that, it has not replaced any other existing organisations, and these continue with their respective responsibilities.
In other words, far from being the sole Board in the Highlands it must work with the Crofters Commission, the Scottish Tourist Board, the Land Commission, various authorities concerned with fishing, the Forestry Commission, the National Trust for Scotland, the Scottish Country Industries Development Trust and the Hydro-Electric Board for Scotland. There will also now be a new Countryside Commission for Scotland and so on. Therefore, the happy picture of the Highlands and Islands Development Board as a single monolithic authority for development in the Highlands is mistaken, although it is true that

in certain directions the Board has power and authority to spend money for which we have no exact equivalent in Wales.
In most other directions we have all the facilities, and the possibilities of grants and other aid, including advice from specialist studies of particular areas. All these are available to us. However, the Highlands and Islands Development Board has the advantage over us in the matter of provision of tourist facilities, though not of publicity. From December, 1965, to September, 1967, the Board made grants and loans for the development of the tourist industry amounting to about £660,000, which is more than a third of its total expenditure in Scotland. But the Government are in active consultation with the Development Commission, which has already done a great deal for industry in Mid-Wales, about methods of providing for tourism in Mid-Wales and similar areas. I hope that we shall shortly be able to explain in detail what is proposed. I think that we shall then be getting very close in Mid-Wales to what is now available to Scotland through the Highlands and Islands Development Board. That Board has certain opportunities in fishery which do not arise with us, and if my hon. Friend subtracts the fishery and tourist grants, he will find that we are not so badly off in Wales as he believes.
I have a good deal of sympathy with him over the multiplicity of organisations concerned. I am very anxious that we should have better co-ordination and should evolve a more detailed strategy. This is very much in the minds of those of us who are working with the Welsh Economic Council and who will be working with the new Welsh Council which will be established next March. This will offer us a real opportunity for coordinating various bodies concerned with the development of industry and agriculture and particularly recreational amenities and tourism in the area. I very much hope we shall be able to continue—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes past One o'clock.